The 2010 Toronto International Film Festival (35th Anniversary Edition)

[Stay Puft]

Too soon?

Whatever, I'm already getting excited for this thing. I love film festivals, and I really love the Toronto film festival.

This year's festival is from September 9th to the 19th, which is an extra day longer than previous years. It marks the festival's 35th anniversary, and is also the year that the new festival headquarters, the Bell Lightbox, is finally going to open to the public and become the permanent box office venue.

It looks like there are going to be a few Match Cutters there this year. It looks like I'm going to be there for the entire festival as well, though I'll be trying to take it easy and not kill myself with back to back screenings like I have in the past.

Lots of stuff has been announced so far. I'll put it in a seperate post in a moment.

[Stay Puft]

50 films were announced this week:
http://www.tiff.net/press/pressreleases/2010/celebrated-actors-and-filmmakers-take-centre-stage-as-tiff-announces-stellar-lineup-of-galas-and-special-presentations

Galas
The Bang Bang Club (Steven Silver)
Barney's Version (Richard J. Lewis)
Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky)
Casino Jack (George Hickenlooper)
The Conspirator (Robert Redford)
The Debt (John Madden)
The Housemaid (Im Sang-Soo)
Janie Jones (David M. Rosenthal)
The King's Speech (Tom Hooper)
Little White Lies (Guillaume Canet)
Peep World (Barry Blaustein)
Potiche (Francois Ozon)
The Town (Ben Affleck)
The Way (Emilio Estevez)
West is West (Andy De Emmony)

Special Presentations
Another Year (Mike Leigh)
Beginners (Mike Mills)
The Big Picture (Eric Lartigau)
Biutiful (Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu)
Blue Valentine (Derek Ciafrance)
Brighton Rock (Rowan Joffe)
Buried (Rodrigo Cortes)
Conviction (Tony Goldwyn)
Cirkus Columbia (Danis Tanovic)
Dhobi Ghat (Kiran Rao)
Easy A (Will Gluck)
Henry's Crime (Malcolm Venville)
The Illusionist (Sylvain Chomet)
In a Better World (Susanne Bier)
I Saw the Devil (Kim Jee-woon)
It's Kind of a Funny Story (Ryan Fleck)
Jack Goes Boating (Philip Seymour Hoffman)
L'Amour Fou (Pierre Thoretton)
The Legend of the Fist: The Return of Chen Zhen (Andrew Lau)
Lope (Andrucha Waddington)
Love Crime (Alain Corneau)
Made in Dagenham (Nigel Cole)
Miral (Julian Schnabel)
Never Let Me Go (Mark Romanek)
Norwegian Wood (Tran Anh Hung)
Outside the Law (Rachid Bouchared)
Rabbit Hole (John Cameron Mitchell)
A Screaming Man (Mahamat-Saleh Haroun)
Stone (John Curran)
Submarine (Richard Ayoade)
That Girl in Yellow Boots (Anurag Kashyap)
Tamara Drew (Stephen Frears)
The Trip (Michael Winterbottom)
Trust (David Schwimmer)
You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger (Woody Allen)

Masters
Mysteries of Lisbon (Raul Ruiz)

[Henry Gale]

Only two films I've seen at the festival over the years have been The Fountain and The Wrestler. I guess I gotta do Black Swan to keep that pattern going, but at the same time there's so much great-looking stuff already, I'll probably end trying to see several more.

[MacGuffin]

L'Amour Fou

New print = Criterion.

[Stay Puft]

In addition, the Future Projections line-up has been revealed, along with the details of the Bell Lightbox opening ceremonies and its first exhibition:
http://www.tiff.net/press/pressreleases/2010/major-free-exhibition-to-open-tiff-bell-lightbox-on-september-12-2010

The Bell Lightbox opens on September 12th, which is also the first date of a month long exhibition entitled Essential Cinema.

Essential Cinema will include four commissioned media artworks:
Hauntings I & II (Guy Maddin)
8 1/2 Screens (Atom Egoyan)
E-100 (James Andean and Francois Xavier Saint-Pierre)
Essential Titles (Barr Gilmore)

Also, the Future Projections line-up:
Slidelength (Michael Snow)
Jeanne (Martin Arnold)
24 Hour Psycho Back and Forth and To and Fro (Douglas Gordon)
Otolith III (The Otolith Group)
Klatsassin (Stan Douglas)
Journey to the Moon (William Kentridge)
Man With a Movie Camera: The Global Remake (Perry Bard)
Heavenhell (Chris Chong Chan Fui & Yasuhiro Morinaga)
In the Love for Mood (Ming Wong)
Soft Rains #6: Suburban Horror, part 1 (Jennifer and Kevin McCoy)

[Stay Puft]

New print = Criterion.

Not the Rivette, if that's what you were thinking.

[MacGuffin]

Not the Rivette, if that's what you were thinking.

Damn, yes that was. Although there have been talks that Criterion will meet Rivette soon enough so I maintain some hope.

[B-side]

Masters
Mysteries of Lisbon (Raul Ruiz)

I will blow anyone that wants to take me to TIFF.

[Ezee E]

I'm really curious what Schnabel has after doing Diving Bell and the Butterfly

[B-side]

I will blow anyone that wants to take me to TIFF.

Here is a short, 2 and a half minute "making of". (http://vimeo.com/13485850)

If you're not looking forward to it now, I have no hope for you.:P

[Boner M]

90% certain that I'm going.

[NickGlass]

90% certain that I'm going.

Reeeally? Well, I may be taking a weekend to soak in some films and local color in T-town, too. I've never been, so--why not?

[dmk]

Criterion hate Rivette, so I can't see that ever happening. :frustrated:

But look, Norwegian Wood. That's something I'd fly over for.

[NickGlass]

Galas
Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky)
Little White Lies (Guillaume Canet)
Potiche (Francois Ozon)

Special Presentations
Another Year (Mike Leigh)
Blue Valentine (Derek Ciafrance)
The Illusionist (Sylvain Chomet)
Rabbit Hole (John Cameron Mitchell)


I would like to see these.

[B-side]

I thought Criterion confirmed they were releasing Out 1 or L'amour fou, or even both?

[dmk]

I thought Criterion confirmed they were releasing Out 1 or L'amour fou, or even both?
No one will ever release Out 1.

There were rumours about Paris nous appartient, but Criterion hate Rivette too much to confirm such a thing.

[B-side]

No one will ever release Out 1.

There were rumours about Paris nous appartient, but Criterion hate Rivette too much to confirm such a thing.

Bah. Bah to your pessimism.

[B-side]

According to criterionforum (http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23), Out 1, Fool's Game and Paris Belongs to Us are distinct possibilities.

[Raiders]

I'm selfishly glad Malick appears to be a no show given that I recently found out that, yet again, I cannot attend as I was planning.

[MacGuffin]

Bah. Bah to your pessimism.

I think you may be right though. I heard the same rumor and it wouldn't be the most surprising thing after their work on a similar-length movie like Berlin Alexanderplatz.

[Ezee E]

I'm selfishly glad Malick appears to be a no show given that I recently found out that, yet again, I cannot attend as I was planning.
Doubt the thing would even be ready.

[Stay Puft]

A few things:

Many more films will be announced, including more Special Presentations and maybe Galas as things get confirmed.

The Masters program, which features a lot of the high profile international art house types, has yet to be announced, beyond the Ruiz reveal, so we'll want to keep our eyes peeled for that.

For us genre fans, Midnight Madness films get announced next week.

Other programs yet to be announced include Vision, Vanguard, City to City, Wavelengths and Contemporary World Cinema.

The Terence Malick film may yet be announced, but we'll pray it won't be, for Raiders' sake.

An extra note for Galas, for those who have never attended: They cost a premium, which means $38 or so. Red carpet events, celebrity gazing and all that whatever. Usually means no Q&As and so on. I tend to avoid them on principle, though I've been considering dishing out the cash for one this year, just to see what it's all about.

[Stay Puft]

More film announcements! Midnight Madness announcements have been delayed due to behind the scenes shenanigans, but we've got documentaries and avant-garde goodies instead.

I'll list the documentaries first:
http://www.tiff.net/press/pressreleases/2010/errol-morris-bruce-springsteen-kim-longinotto-and-werner-herzog-in-3-d-lead-a-line-up-of-documentary-all-stars

Gala
The Promise: The Making of Darkness on the Edge of Town (Thom Zimny)

Masters
Erotic Man (Jorgen Leth)
Nostalgia for the Light (Patricio Guzman)

Real to Reel
ANPO (Linda Hoaglund)
Armadillo (Janus Metz)
Boxing Gym (Frederick Wiseman)
Cave of Forgotten Dreams (Werner Herzog)
Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer (Alex Gibney)
Cool It (Ondi Timoner)
The Game of Death (Christophe Nick & Thomas Bornot)
Genpin (Naomi Kawase)
Inside Job (Charles Ferguson)
Machete Maidens Unleashed! (Mark Hartley)
Mother of Rock: Lillian Roxon (Paul Clarke)
Pink Saris (Kim Longinotto)
The Pipe (Risteard O Domhnaill)
Precious Life (Shlomi Eldar)
The Sound of Mumbai: A Musical (Sarah McCarthy)
Tabloid (Errol Morris)
Tears of Gaza (Vibeke Lokkegerg)
When My Child is Born (Guo Jing & Ke Dingding)
Windfall (Laura Israel)
!Women Art Revolution: A Secret History (Lynn Hershman Leeson)

Sprockets Family Zone
Make Believe (J. Clay Tweel)

[Stay Puft]

Wavelengths Program:
http://www.tiff.net/press/pressreleases/2010/wavelengths-celebrates-its-tenth-year-with-an-expanded-line-up-of-innovative-works-from-around-the-world

1. Soul of the City
Tokyo-Ebisu (Tomonari Nishikawa)
The Soul of Things (Dominic Angerame)
Get Out of the Car (Thom Anderson)
Victoria, George, Edward and Thatcher (Callum Cooper)
Landscape, semi-surround (Eriko Sonoda)
Everywhere was the Same (Basma Al-Sharif)
Leona Alone (Oliver Husain)

2. Plein-Air
Burning Bush (Vincent Grenier)
Home Movie (John Price)
Ouverture (Christopher Becks)
Cinematographie (Philipp Fleischmann)
Blow-Ups: Portrait, Tea Time, Red Curtain (Helga Fanderl)
Anne Truitt, Working (Jem Cohen)
Color Films 1 & 2 (Madison Brookshire)

3. Ruhr
Ruhr (James Benning)

4. Pastourelle
Compline (Nathaniel Dorsky)
Aubade (Nathaniel Dorsky)
Pastourelle (Nathaniel Dorsky)
Water Lillies (T. Marie)

5. Blue Mantle
Atlantiques (Mati Diop)
One (Eve Heller)
753 McPherson Ave. (Kevin Jerome Everson)
blue mantle (Rebecca Meyer)
Slaveship (T. Marie)
Hell Roaring Creek (Lucien Castaign-Taylor)

6. Coming Attractions
Photo Finish Figures (Paolo Gioli)
The Day Was a Scorcher (Ken Jacobs)
Concorso di bellezza fra bambino a Torino (Various and Anonymous)
Delphine de Oliveira (Friedl vom Groller)
Jonas Mekas in Kodachrome Days (Ken Jacobs)
Le Roi des dollars (Segundo de Chomon)
Coming Attractions (Peter Tscherkassky)
Bits and Pieces (EYE Film Institute Netherlands)

[B-side]

:eek:

New Paolo Gioli and Peter Tscherkassky? Gah.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Might check out a couple of flicks in between classes this year, now that I've got huge gaps in my day.

[B-side]

Can I come and live with you, Spiff? I wanna see movies.:sad:

[Spaceman Spiff]

Can I come and live with you, Spiff? I wanna see movies.:sad:

Unfortunately no (I still live with my parents), but I've got a couple of weirdo friends with grotty couches downtown if you're cool with that.

You should just move to Toronto though. It's a pretty good city.

And yeah, I am all over the new Tscherkassky.

[B-side]

Unfortunately no (I still live with my parents), but I've got a couple of weirdo friends with grotty couches downtown if you're cool with that.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__mokxbTmuJM/RnWbRKcE9bI/AAAAAAAAATo/_pbBfL_J6dE/s400/hbaked04.jpg

I could be the "guy on the couch!"


You should just move to Toronto though. It's a pretty good city.

And yeah, I am all over the new Tscherkassky.

I've actually been thoroughly considering this for a while now. Canada just seems so much cooler. Bound to be several steps up from Michigan.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I've actually been thoroughly considering this for a while now. Canada just seems so much cooler. Bound to be several steps up from Michigan.

How dare youeah I can't even finish that sentence. Michigan is a hole. And not the kind that was dug with any significant purpose in mind. More of the perpetually sinking variety.

[Stay Puft]

More film announcements. Today was devoted to announcing Canadian films, so I imagine this will simply put most of you to sleep.

http://tiff.net/press/pressreleases/2010/oh-canada-festival-announces-impressive-selection-of-canadian-features

GALAS

A Beginners Guide to Endings (Jonathan Sobol)

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

Force of Nature: The David Suzuki Movie (Sturla Gunnarsson)
Good Neighbours (Jacob Tierney)
Incendies (Denis Villeneuve)
Les amours imaginaires (Xavier Dolan)
Repeaters (Carl Bessai)
Trigger (Bruce McDonald)

CONTEMPORARY WORLD CINEMA

À l’origine d’un cri (Robin Aubert)
MODRA (Ingrid Veninger)
A Night for Dying Tigers (Terry Miles)
Route 132 (Louis Bélanger)
Small Town Murder Songs (Ed Gass-Donnelly)

MIDNIGHT MADNESS

Fubar II (Michael Dowse)

REAL TO REEL

How to Start Your Own Country (Jody Shapiro)
The Man of a Thousand Songs (William D. MacGillivray)

VISIONS

Curling (Denis Côté)
Trois temps après la mort d'Anna (Catherine Martin)

CANADIAN OPEN VAULT

A Married Couple (Allan King)

...

Also announced, the Canada First program, dedicated to debut films by Canadian filmmakers.

http://tiff.net/press/pressreleases/2010/tiff-celebrates-the-freshest-homegrown-talent-with-canada-first

Daydream Nation (Mike Goldbach)
Amazon Falls (Katrin Bowen)
High Cost of Living (Deborah Chow)
Jaloux (Patrick Demers)
Oliver Sherman (Ryan Redford)
You Are Here (Daniel Cockburn)

...

And then there is Short Cuts Canada, a selection of forty (40) short films by Canadian filmmakers. You can just click the link for the list.

http://tiff.net/press/pressreleases/2010/short-cuts-canada-lineup-celebrates-the-best-in-short-film

[Stay Puft]

Tomorrow will bring some major announcements, I think. Midnight Madness and City to City programs are going to be announced, as well as more Galas and Special Presentations. Three of the MM films are going to be announced at midnight tonight.

However! While tweeting cropped pics as teasers, MM programmer Colin Geddes effectively announced Red Lights, a Chinese-French thriller starring Carrie Ng and directed by Julien Carbon and Laurent Courtiaud, the folks who wrote Running Out of Time for Johnnie To.

Also! Jia Zhang-ke's new documentary, I Wish I Knew, will be playing at the festival. Why it was never formally announced in the press releases, I have no idea. But, I noticed it was listed on the website, so there we go.

[Boner M]

Also! Jia Zhang-ke's new documentary, I Wish I Knew, will be playing at the festival. Why it was never formally announced in the press releases, I have no idea.
Whoa, nice pun resistance there.

btw, I'm definitely gonna be there this year. Hit me up for a movie date, y'all.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Are you catching the new Tscherkassky?

[Stay Puft]

MM programmer Colin Geddes announces three of the remaining nine films:

The Butcher, the Chef and the Swordsman (Wu Ershan)
Bunraku (Guy Moshe)
Super (James Gunn)

Also, tomorrow we get 18 special presentations and two galas including the closing night film. And the rest of the MM films. Odds on Ong Bak 3? Toronto loves Tony Jaa, but then again, given the reactions to the film...

[Boner M]

Are you catching the new Tscherkassky?
Def.

[Stay Puft]

Movies!
http://tiff.net/press/pressreleases/2010/toronto-international-film-festival-adds-new-galas-and-special-presentations-to-its-high-calibre-line-up

GALAS

Last Night (Massy Tadjedin)
Sarah’s Key (Gilles Paquet Brenner)

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

127 Hours (Danny Boyle)
AMIGO (John Sayles)
Deep in the Woods (Benoît Jacquot)
Everything Must Go (Dan Rush)
Gorbaciòf - The Cashier who Liked Gambling (Stefano Incerti)
Hereafter (Clint Eastwood)
I’m Still Here (Casey Affleck
Julia’s Eyes (Guillem Morales)
The Last Circus (�lex de la Iglesia)
Let Me In (Matt Reeves)
The House by the Medlar Tree (Pasquale Scimeca)
Mothers (Milcho Manchevski)
Passion (John Turturro)
Passion Play (Mitch Glazer)
The Poll Diaries (Chris Kraus)
Rio Sex Comedy (Jonathan Nossiter)
Special Treatment (Jeanne Labrune)
What's Wrong With Virginia (Dustin Lance Black)

Also, the City to City focus this year is Istanbul:
http://tiff.net/press/pressreleases/2010/yaasin-istanbul-spotlighted-in-festivals-city-to-city-programme

10 to 11 (Pelin Esmer)
40 (Emre Sahin)
Block-C (Zeki Demirkubuz)
Dark Cloud (Theron Patterson)
Distant (Nuri Bilge Ceylan)
Hair (Tayfun Pirselimoğlu)
The Majority (Seren Yüce)
My Only Sunshine (Reha Erdem)
September 12 (Özlem Sulak)
Somersault in a Coffin (Dervis Zaim)

Plus a short film selection, just hit the link.

[Stay Puft]

And, of course, the complete Midnight Madness slate:
http://tiff.net/press/pressreleases/2010/when-the-sun-goes-down-the-stars-come-out-festivals-midnight-madness-line-up-packed-with-big-names-big-action-and-big-thrills

Bunraku (Guy Moshe)
The Butcher, The Chef and the Swordsman (Wuershan)
Fire of Conscience (Dante Lam)
Insidious (James Wan)
Red Nights (Julien Carbon, Laurent Courtiaud)
Stake Land (Jim Mickle)
SUPER (James Gunn)
Vanishing on 7th Street (Brad Anderson)
The Ward (John Carpenter)
Fubar II (Michael Dowse)
Legend of Beaver Dam (Jerome Sable)

[Stay Puft]

Movies!

The list is final, the schedule is available, and an absurd number of new films have been announced today. Plenty of enticing selections.

First, the Masters program:
http://tiff.net/press/pressreleases/2010/10-films-announced-as-part-of-the-festivals-masters-programme

13 Assassins (Takashi Miike)
Essential Killing (Jerzy Skolimowski)
Film Socialism (Jean-Luc Godard)
I Wish I Knew (Jia Zhang-ke) [So there's the formal announcement!]
Poetry (Lee Chang-dong)
Roses Ã* Crédit (Amos Gitai)
Route Irish (Ken Loach)
The Sleeping Beauty (Catherine Breillat)
The Strange Case of Angelica (Manoel de Oliveira)
Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives (Apichatpong Weerasethakul)

These are in addition to the previously announced:
Erotic Man (Jørgen Leth)
Mysteries of Lisbon (Raul Ruiz)
Nostalgia for the Light (Patricio Guzmán)

...

And on the opposite end, debut films from first time feature filmmakers in the Discovery program:
http://tiff.net/press/pressreleases/2010/27-debuts-from-around-the-world-in-tiffs-discovery-programme

27 films in total, hit the link if you want to peruse the titles.

[Stay Puft]

Visions & Vanguard programs! A new film by Sion Sono! Hardcore zombie porn from Bruce LaBruce!

http://tiff.net/press/pressreleases/2010/tiff-presents-films-that-push-cinematic-boundaries-in-visions-and-vanguard-programmes

VISIONS

The Autobiography of Nicolae Ceausescu (Andrei Ujica)
Brownian Movement (Nanouk Leopold)
The Ditch (Wang Bing)
The Four Times (Michelangelo Frammartino)
k.364 A Journey by Train (Douglas Gordon)
Moscow 11:19:31 (Michael Nyman)
Over Your Cities Grass Will Grow (Sophie Fiennes)
Promises Written in Water (Vincent Gallo)
Summer of Goliath (NicolÃ*s Pereda)
A Useful Life (Federico Veiroj)

VANGUARD

At Ellen’s Age (Pia Marais)
The Christening (Marcin Wrona)
Cold Fish (Sion Sono)
Confessions (Tetsuya Nakashima)
Easy Money (Daniel Espinosa)
A Horrible Way to Die (Adam Wingard)
Kaboom (Gregg Araki)
L.A. Zombie (Bruce LaBruce)
Microphone (Ahmad Abdalla)
Monsters (Gareth Edwards)
Our Day Will Come (Romain Gavras)

[Stay Puft]

And now for a monster list. 45 films announced as part of the Contemporary World Cinema program.

http://tiff.net/press/pressreleases/2010/world-premieres-by-bent-hamer-peter-mullan-koen-mortier-iciar-bollain-and-kim-tae-yong-among-45-international-titles-as-festival-announces-contemporary-world-cinema-programme

A lot of the films from Cannes and Venice are here. Let's begin!

22nd of May (Koen Mortier)
Africa United (Debs Gardner-Paterson)
Aftershock (Feng Xiaogang)
All About Love (Ann Hui)
Anything You Want (Achero Mañas)
Bad Faith (Kristian Petri)
Behind Blue Skies (Hannes Holm)
Black Ocean (Marion Hänsel)
Blessed Events (Isabelle Stever)
Break Up Club (Barbara Wong)
Carancho (Pablo Trapero)
Chico & Rita (Fernando Trueba, Javier Mariscal, Tono Errando)
Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame (Tsui Hark)
The Edge (Alexey Uchitel)
Even the Rain (IcÃ*ar BollaÃ*n)
The First Grader (Justin Chadwick)
The Fourth Portrait (Chung Mong-Hong)
Home for Christmas (Bent Hamer)
How I Ended This Summer (Alexei Popogrebsky)
The Human Resources Manager (Eran Riklis)
The Hunter (Rafi Pitts)
I Am Slave (Gabriel Range)
Jucy (Louise Alston)
Lapland Odyssey (Dome Karukoski)
Late Autumn (Kim Tae-Yong)
Leap Year (Michael Rowe)
Life, Above All (Oliver Schmitz)
The Light Thief (Aktan Arym Kubat)
Mamma Gógó (Fridrik Thor Fridriksson)
Matariki (Michael Bennett)
The Matchmaker (Avi Nesher)
Meek's Cutoff (Kelly Reichardt)
My Joy (Sergei Loznitsa)
Neds (Peter Mullan)
Of Gods and Men (Xavier Beauvois)
Oki's Movie (Hong Sangsoo)
Outbound Bogdan (George Apetri)
Sensation (Tom Hall)
The Solitude Of Prime Numbers (Saverio Constanzo)
Tender Son – The Frankenstein Project (Kornél Mundruczó)
Tracker (Ian Sharp)
Three (Tom Tykwer)
Silent Souls (Aleksei Fedorchenko)
State of Violence (Khalo Matabane)
White Irish Drinkers (John Gray)
Womb (Benedek Fliegauf)

[soitgoes...]

A new film by Sion Sono!
Awesome. It's going to be at Venice also.

Have you seen Be Sure to Share yet? It's my favorite of his.

[MacGuffin]

Personally, I'm looking forward to Lords of Chaos, Sono's movie about the Norwegian black metal movement. I will probably watch Strange Circus tonight finally; it will be my first of his.

[NickGlass]

Oh my, they show too many damn films. I'm only planning on going for four days--so I have a narrow field--but trying to plan which films to see (since I'm only going to see a few--I'm taking the opportunity to explore the city itself, too) has been an absolute mess.

[Ezee E]

Oh my, they show too many damn films. I'm only planning on going for four days--so I have a narrow field--but trying to plan which films to see (since I'm only going to see a few--I'm taking the opportunity to explore the city itself, too) has been an absolute mess.
Do they always show so many? I can't imagine many selling many tickets.

[Spaceman Spiff]

What movies should I watch guys? I only have the wallet for maybe 3 or 4. The only sure thing at the moment is the new Tscherkassky, but I can't say I've kept even half an eye on the 'buzz' films.

[MacGuffin]

What movies should I watch guys? I only have the wallet for maybe 3 or 4. The only sure thing at the moment is the new Tscherkassky, but I can't say I've kept even half an eye on the 'buzz' films.

If I could go and was limited to three or four selections, I'd choose Essential Killing, Film Socialisme, Uncle Boonme Who Can Recall His Past Lives and if you're not including short films, probably I'm Not Here.

[Stay Puft]

Do they always show so many? I can't imagine many selling many tickets.

They have 300 films this year, and that's actually less than previous years. I think they've also stopped showing films early in the morning on weekdays. However, I don't think business is a terribly big problem.

Toronto is the largest public film festival in the world, and it's incredibly popular. (Screenings regularly sell out, but also rarely sell out. They control the flow of ticket sales and try to accomodate everyone through rush lines.) I don't think I've ever been to a screening that wasn't at least at half capacity, maybe even two thirds. I'm sure some screenings don't get much business, but on the whole, the festival gets good traffic.

[soitgoes...]

If I could only see 4 films from there they would be Uncle Boonmee, Poetry, Cold Fish and then either Meek's Cutoff or Essential Killing depending on my mood.

[MacGuffin]

If I could go and was limited to three or four selections, I'd choose Essential Killing, Film Socialisme, Uncle Boonme Who Can Recall His Past Lives and if you're not including short films, probably I'm Not Here.

Actually, I didn't see the Gallo. Replace I'm Not Here (and any other short film) with that.

[baby doll]

Only 300 films? I would've thought closer to 500. When I went to PIFF in 2008, the number was well over 200, and even the local film festival in Halifax programs over one hundred. They probably show as many films at Cannes if you count all the different sidebars; it's only having a limited main competition that makes it seem less daunting than Toronto.

[Stay Puft]

What movies should I watch guys? I only have the wallet for maybe 3 or 4. The only sure thing at the moment is the new Tscherkassky, but I can't say I've kept even half an eye on the 'buzz' films.

I don't even know how I would respond, as I often choose films for different reasons. Last year, I saw a Chinese film, Wheat, simply because I wanted to go to the Winter Garden Theatre and it was the only film playing there at that time.

Uncle Boonmee is the only film I feel I need to see. I'm also contemplating attending the Mavericks discussion with Weerasethakul, but I don't know how tickets work for that (I'm assuming they count as regular ticket screenings?).

I'm also going to be seeing a couple films at the TIFF Bell Lightbox, and I don't care what. I just want to see the new facility.

I would like to see the Tscherkassky and stuff, but I'm kind of annoyed with the way the Wavelengths program works. I don't have any ideas for better solutions, but I know I'm not terribly satisfied with what they do now. They basically bunch a group of avant-garde works together and screen them back to back, uninterrupted, to fill a regular 90 minute feature length time or whatever for the standard ticket fare. I've gone in the past, and just walk out feeling like it wasn't the best way to experience some of those works.

[Stay Puft]

Only 300 films? I would've thought closer to 500.

It has been closer to 500 in the past. As I said, the TIFF group wanted a smaller and tighter focus this year. I'm sure some of it has to do with business, but the festival never seems to hurt for business. I think they added an extra day to it this year partly to accomodate their decision not to screen films so early on weekdays. But there are probably other reasons, I don't know.

edit - They actually seem to have been moving in that direction for a while. I double checked their fact sheets, and the most films they ever had was 460, and that was in 1984. Last year, they had 336. It's the largest public festival, but not the largest festival. I always thought Cannes had more films regardless.

[Spaceman Spiff]

If I could go and was limited to three or four selections, I'd choose Essential Killing, Film Socialisme, Uncle Boonme Who Can Recall His Past Lives and if you're not including short films, probably I'm Not Here.

D'oh! How could I forget Boonmee? Essential Killing sounds pretty rad. I hate Godard, so not interested in his new flick - and I can wait for I'm Not Here to hit the indie theatres. Was thinking of checking out Mysteries of Lisbon but yeesh... 4 and a half hours?!

[MacGuffin]

D'oh! How could I forget Boonmee? Essential Killing sounds pretty rad. I hate Godard, so not interested in his new flick - and I can wait for I'm Not Here to hit the indie theatres. Was thinking of checking out Mysteries of Lisbon but yeesh... 4 and a half hours?!

Yeah, I'm Not Here was kind of a bad choice on my part since it will be in theaters soon, but you should look into the Gallo.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Michael Nyman has a movie coming out? That's awesome.

Cold Fish and the new Reichardt also sound very awesome. Oh noes! Major dilemna.

[Stay Puft]

Oh my gosh, what is this. Kitano's new film is nowhere. All of his recent movies have been at the festival. It was the only way I could even see them! How can you rob me of this, TIFF?

[soitgoes...]

Oh my gosh, what is this. Kitano's new film is nowhere. All of his recent movies have been at the festival. It was the only way I could even see them! How can you rob me of this, TIFF?The Japanese DVD with English subs will be released on December 3rd, so you always have that.

[Stay Puft]

Oh, fine. :P

Of course there are other ways to see his films. The truth is just that I love seeing Kitano's films in Toronto. They're always a great experience. I am super disappointed that I won't be seeing Outrage with a festival audience.

[Qrazy]

Alright, here's a short list of all the Match Cutters I'm aware of who are coming to the festival...

Qrazy
Boner M
Derek
Melville
Stay Puft
Spaceman Spiff
NickGlass

Anyone else?

If there were a time for a Match-Cut meet up I think this is it. I therefore suggest we all go to a bar for a beer(s). Let's set a date, a time and a location.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Most def. I know a couple of great places downtown as well.

[Boner M]

Snoozed & lost; ended up getting the 50-film pack, though I'll likely see 40 at the most. If anyone wants a sesh(es) from me just let me know, and ya can pay me later.

[Duncan]

Jeez, I picked a stupid time to move. Oh well.

[NickGlass]

Snoozed & lost; ended up getting the 50-film pack, though I'll likely see 40 at the most. If anyone wants a sesh(es) from me just let me know, and ya can pay me later.

The list is overwhelming and you know what I like--what should I see? Please do my homework for meeeee.

[Stay Puft]

Snoozed & lost; ended up getting the 50-film pack, though I'll likely see 40 at the most. If anyone wants a sesh(es) from me just let me know, and ya can pay me later.

Holy fuck. I saw 30 films last year and thought I was going to die. I have no idea how people manage such a feat.

I'm probably going to stop after 20 films this year.

[Ezee E]

Anything more then three a day is overkill, and I forget two of them by the time I wake up the next day.

[Derek]

Anything more then three a day is overkill

Not true. Depends mostly on the lengths and styles of the films you're watching.



and I forget two of them by the time I wake up the next day.

Your poor memory makes me feel better about my poor memory! :pritch:

[Boner M]

The list is overwhelming and you know what I like--what should I see? Please do my homework for meeeee.
Film Socialisme is a must see for its high points.
New Hong Sang-Soo Oki's Movie, although the program makes it sound more purely formalist as opposed to stuff like Woman on the Beach.
Jose Luis Geurin has a new doco about his fest experiences - Guest - and you were a bigger fan of ...Sylvia than I, so yeah.
Xavier Dolan's Heartbeats is fun in a precocious-undergrad-shows-off-his-Criterion-Collection kinda way. It features a Louis Garrel lookalike and the real Louis Garrel.
Reichhardt's Meek's Cutoff, of course.
Lee Chang-Dong's Poetry gets better and better the more I think of it, and has the kind of low-key, allusive, poetic naturalism that I know you dig.
Blue Valentine, Jack Goes Boating & It's Kind of a Funny Story are all Amerindies that you will either like, or like not-liking.
Stephen Frears' Tamara Drewe seems like a witty British romp right up your alley.
John Cameron Mitchell's Oscarbait-ish Rabbit Hole, I guess?
Of Gods and Men seems like a sure thing based on Cannes word.
Gregg Araki's Kaboom, maybe? Supposed to be like an early Araki film only with decent actors.

...will look through the rest of the schedule later. Only one ticket per screening allowed to be booked on a pass, so I 'spose I'll post my schedule later so you can see what's available.

[Boner M]

I can manage up to five films a day as long as there're significant (ie, at least half an hour) gaps in between each of them.

[NickGlass]

Film Socialisme is a must see for its high points. [....a bunch of film recommendations featuring catty commentary on the films themselves and NickGlass' taste in general...]
Gregg Araki's Kaboom, maybe? Supposed to be like an early Araki film only with decent actors.

...will look through the rest of the schedule later.

Thank you, merci, gracias, danke. Before your run-down, my current tentative line-up of new Gregg Araki, Bruce LaBruce, and "Leap Year" made me look like a total perv.

Yeah, now I'm simply having trouble deciding what to see based on (a) when the film is going to be released in NYC (if it's within four months of the screening, it's out), (b) if the film is playing at the NYFF as well, and (c) if I even have time to see more than a half dozen, because, of course, I must leave myself a substantial amount of time to explore the culinary/art/dive bar culture of Toronto.

[Qrazy]

Alright guys so which day/time/location works best for everyone for the meet up? I'm probably starting a second job soon so my availability is going to disappear rather quickly unless we can lock a date down.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Alright guys so which day/time/location works best for everyone for the meet up? I'm probably starting a second job soon so my availability is going to disappear rather quickly unless we can lock a date down.

Well, when is everyone coming? My classes start September 13th - on my birthday, which is a total drag - but that only means that I'll be busy during the early afternoon. I live pretty close to downtown, so I'm genuinely good for whenever provided I don't have a class then.

As for movies, I'm thinking of Coming Attractions (Tscherkassky), Uncle Boonmee (Weerasethakul) and possibly The Illusionist (Chomet - from a script written by Tati!)

[Qrazy]

Well if we're doing the bar, and we should because like booze, we should get an early start since some people live outside of the city and probably have to leave early. So maybe 8:00pm on the 11th (Saturday)? I just moved to Toronto so someone else who knows the night life better can perhaps weigh in on some good locations. The only place I've been so far is The Madison Avenue Club which was a pretty decent bar (4 floors, Pub atmosphere, some pool tables, etc). Although I don't know how old everyone going to the fest is, but you have to be 21 and over after 11pm Thursday, Friday and Saturday there.

[Spaceman Spiff]

You moved here? Nice!

I'm turning 21, but there are better places than the Maddy anyways (although I do like that they have Hoegaarden on tap).

What type of bar do you like? Olde English style? Excellent patios with lots of those lights that turn on at dusk? Hipstery dives? A friend of mine who writes for eye weekly just did a short list on her favorite bars in the city - I can link you if you want for future reference.

[Qrazy]

You moved here? Nice!

I'm turning 21, but there are better places than the Maddy anyways (although I do like that they have Hoegaarden on tap).

What type of bar do you like? Olde English style? Excellent patios with lots of those lights that turn on at dusk? Hipstery dives? A friend of mine who writes for eye weekly just did a short list on her favorite bars in the city - I can link you if you want for future reference.

Sure, I'd appreciate the link. I like any kind of watering hole, reasonably priced or inexpensive, but not the dirt cheap ones. Dislike trendy/pricey bars and not super keen on hipstery dives but I'll make an exception if it's a quality microbrewery. It's always a plus when the music isn't ear splittingly loud as well.

[Melville]

What type of bar do you like? Olde English style? Excellent patios with lots of those lights that turn on at dusk? Hipstery dives? A friend of mine who writes for eye weekly just did a short list on her favorite bars in the city - I can link you if you want for future reference.
I vote excellent patios with lights. Extra win if it's the rooftop variety.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Sure, I'd appreciate the link. I like any kind of watering hole, reasonably priced or inexpensive, but not the dirt cheap ones. Dislike trendy/pricey bars and not super keen on hipstery dives but I'll make an exception if it's a quality microbrewery. It's always a plus when the music isn't ear splittingly loud as well.

http://www.eyeweekly.com/article/100051

Those are all 'cheap' places, as the title suggests. I hate the Brunny, and I've never been to Blueberry Hill, but the rest of the bars on that list are quality.

As far as lit patios go, I can vouch for Cloak and Dagger - they have plenty of reasonably priced Toronto microbreweries on tap at College W and not quite Bathurst, but it's not a rooftop. It gets bonus points when the old owner with the thousand yard stare is there, because he looks directly at you when you order your drink, has a Fu Manchu facial hair style and always puts on either The Band, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan or CCR on the stereo. The best rooftop that I know of is the Pauper's Pub on Bloor W and also not quite Bathurst. It doesn't have the same local Toronto-scene charm perhaps (it's a chain), but it's also reasonably priced and from the top roof you get a pretty excellent view of the city. Bring your cameras.

NOTE: My idea of reasonably priced might differ from yours. Outside of Ottawa/Hull, I've never drank outside of Toronto.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Also, if you guys are also super short on cash, Einstein's (an Engineering bar by my university) has 10 dollar pitchers (I think) of their house brew - which isn't exceptional but certainly drinkable.

Sorry to totally derail this thread, guys. Heh.

[Qrazy]

Hmmm rooftop patios are definitely nice but from what I've read on the interwebs Pauper's Pub doesn't seem all that interesting (seems like Montreal's Trois Brasseurs). Personally I vote Cloak and Dagger out of those two. After a little research The Victory Cafe also seems decent. Have you been Spiff?

[Boner M]

Whoa, Mysteries of Lisbon is over 4.5 hours long. Let's see the Sunday 19th one, eh guys?

EDIT: And the trailer looks great (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsRrmIx-xGc).

[Spaceman Spiff]

Hmmm rooftop patios are definitely nice but from what I've read on the interwebs Pauper's Pub doesn't seem all that interesting (seems like Montreal's Trois Brasseurs). Personally I vote Cloak and Dagger out of those two. After a little research The Victory Cafe also seems decent. Have you been Spiff?

Yes I have. Only once though. It's the first floor of an Annex townhouse, and I think they have solely Ontario microbrews on tap. Delicious yam fries as well, but frankly it's getting harder and harder to find a place that doesn't offer 'em.

It's also on the same street as The Beguiling which is easily one of the best comic shops in North America.

[Qrazy]

Well how does 8:00pm on the 11th at Cloak and Dagger work for everyone?

[Spaceman Spiff]

Whoa, Mysteries of Lisbon is over 4.5 hours long. Let's see the Sunday 19th one, eh guys?

EDIT: And the trailer looks great (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsRrmIx-xGc).

Holy shit, the European Portuguese accent is so goofy sounding. Open your mouths!

Looks very good though, and all the babes in it were super great. North America is clearly the wrong continent for me. Still 4.5 hours is just too much, as I can barely sit still for an hour and a half.

And I'm good for then Qrazy.

[NickGlass]

I think you guys should go to a bar that resembles this place:

http://citynoise.org/upload/4972.jpg

[Spaceman Spiff]

I think that's in the East end. Looks sketchy.

[soitgoes...]

I would consider traveling to Toronto for a chance to sing karaoke with Kim.

[baby doll]

I think you guys should go to a bar that resembles this place:

http://citynoise.org/upload/4972.jpgI'm almost definite my cousin used to buy weed there.

[dmk]

I have so much envy towards those of you who are going. So much of it.

[Boner M]

Alright, here's my tentative schedule. Anyone wants tix to slots that aren't the following (max is 1 ticket per sesh), just name 'em. I'm charging $10 a pop, and it goes towards the very noble cause of helping me survive on Tim Horton's during my stay.

Wavelengths – City: 10 September 2010 9:00 PM

Inside Job: 11 September 2010, 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM
Boxing Gym: 11 September 2010, 3:30 PM to 4:30 PM
Strange Case of Angelica: 11 September 2010, 6:00 PM
Wavelengths – Ruhr: 11 September 2010, 9:00 PM

Wavelengths - Dorsky: 12 September 2010, 7:00 PM
Guest: 12 September 2010, 9:00 PM

My Joy: 13 September 2010, 2:15 PM
Tabloid: 13 September 2010, 7:30 PM
Wavelengths - Coming Attractions: 13 September 2010, 9:00 PM
The Ward: 13 September 2010 at 11:59 PM

Black Swan:14 September 2010, 11:00 AM
Another Year: 14 September 2010, 2:30 PM
Oki's Movie: 14 September 2010, 7:15 PM
Meek's Cutoff: 14 September 2010, 9:00PM

Curling: 15 September 2010, 2:30 PM
Sleeping Beauty: 15 September 2010, 5:15 PM
Reichhardt in convo: 15 September 2010, 9:15 PM
Promises Written on Water: 15 September 2010, 10:45 PM

Blue Valentine: 16 September 2010, 12:00 PM
Leap Year: 16 September 2010, 5:00 PM
Uncle Boonmee: 16 September 2010, 10:30 PM

Of Gods & Men: 17 September 2010, 3:00 PM
Cold Fish: 17 September 2010, 8:30 PM

Kaboom: 18 September 2010, 12:15 PM
Apichatpong in convo: 18 September 2010, 4:00 PM
Cave of Forgotten Dreams 18 September 2010, 8:00 PM

Essential Killing: 19 September 2010, 9:30 AM
Mysteries of Lisbon: 19 September 2010, 6:30 PM

[Rowland]

Tim Horton'sUgh. So overrated. Of course, living in Buffalo, everyone here's fucking obsessed with 'em. That everyone refers to the shitty franchise as "Timmy Ho's" doesn't help matters.

They do have tasty Ice Capps though, I'll give 'em that.

[Boner M]

Ugh. So overrated.
Probably, but Sydney's so deprived of decent coffee & donut places that TH's seems relativity pretty great to me, esp. for chain fast food.

[Qrazy]

Probably, but Sydney's so deprived of decent coffee & donut places that TH's seems relativity pretty great to me, esp. for chain fast food.

They also have adequate and cheap sandwiches so hooray for your nutritional survival. :)

[Spaceman Spiff]

Wait Boner, you're charging 10$ a pop for tickets to those movies? Do I have that right?

If so, I call Wavelengths - Coming Attractions, Meek's Cutoff and Uncle Boonmee

[Stay Puft]

No definite plans yet, but a tentative idea for opening weekend for myself and a friend, who will be in Toronto until the 14th:

Legend of the Fist: The Return of Chen Zhen (09 Sept. @ 9:30 PM)
Griff the Invisible (10 Sept. @ 9:30 PM)
Super (10 Sept. @ 11:59 PM)
The Four Times (11 Sept. @ 12:15 PM)
Love Crimes (11 Sept. @ 8 PM)
Bunraku (11 Sept. @ 11:59 PM)
Beginners (12 Sept. @ 3 PM)
Tabloid (12 Sept. @ 6:30 PM)
Vanishing on 7th Street (12 Sept. @ 11:59 PM)
Cave of Forgotten Dreams (13 Sept. @ 9:45 PM)
Black Swan (14 Sept. @ 11 AM)
Norwegian Wood (14 Sept. @ 3:30 PM)

My friend picked Griff the Invisible, Love Crimes and Beginners. Lau, Herzog, Aronofsky and Midnight Madness screenings were mutual picks.

If there's a Match Cut gathering on Saturday, I'll think about bailing on Love Crimes. However, I could use a good excuse to bail on Griff the Invisible! :lol:

[Qrazy]

Wait Boner, you're charging 10$ a pop for tickets to those movies? Do I have that right?

If so, I call Wavelengths - Coming Attractions, Meek's Cutoff and Uncle Boonmee

10$ a pop to tickets that are not the ones he listed.

[Spaceman Spiff]

10$ a pop to tickets that are not the ones he listed.

Oh. Heh. :lol:

Never mind then.

[Stay Puft]

Boner, how does the 50 pack work? I've always stuck to single tickets, never bought packages or passes. (In fact, half the stuff I usually see is through rush lines.)

If possible, I'd like to buy a couple tickets from you to use for Midnight Madness screenings. Are the tickets just blank vouchers? I know with some passes you have to pre-select films.

[Boner M]

Boner, how does the 50 pack work? I've always stuck to single tickets, never bought packages or passes. (In fact, half the stuff I usually see is through rush lines)
No idea, hoping it's not a case where only the package-holder has to be present for all screenings (ie, a card to swipe), but hey, my scheme's worth a shot I guess.


nutritional survival.
Lame.

[Stay Puft]

No idea, hoping it's not a case where only the package-holder has to be present for all screenings (ie, a card to swipe), but hey, my scheme's worth a shot I guess.

Ah, I don't think anything like that would be a problem. Tickets themselves are used like any regular movie screening. The name of the person who bought the ticket might be on it, but nobody will even look at that. I buy tickets off of other people in rush lines all the time.

[Boner M]

The new Gallo flick was already at the top of my personal most-intriguing list. Now I'm even more intrigued (http://www.movieline.com/2010/04/exclusive-how-vincent-gallo-staged-a-coup-on-the-set-of-his-next-film.php?page=all).

[MacGuffin]

The new Gallo flick was already at the top of my personal most-intriguing list. Now I'm even more intrigued (http://www.movieline.com/2010/04/exclusive-how-vincent-gallo-staged-a-coup-on-the-set-of-his-next-film.php?page=all).

Hah. If you go on the movie or Vincent Gallo's IMDb page boards, you'll see the people who used to be in charge of the film are absolutely furious with Gallo.

[Qrazy]

Gallo seems like a total piece of shit. I wish him failure.

[Qrazy]

Here's what I'm seeing:

Poetry
Carancho
The Illusionist
Meek's Cutoff
Uncle Boonmee
The Town
Mysteries of Lisbon

[Qrazy]

Does anyone have any hope for Carpenter's The Ward?

[soitgoes...]

Does anyone have any hope for Carpenter's The Ward?
Since he hasn't made anything good in 25 years I'm gonna say no.

[Stay Puft]

I found my TIFF thread from last year, which reminded me that I had photos that I never posted (and nevermind that I didn't even write any thoughts on any of the films I saw, as I had promised). Yeesh, I dropped the ball.

I'm going through the photos now, and remembering how terrible they turned out on account of the camera (early generation digital consumer technology, cheap and terrible, etc.). But, also some user error, as I apparently destroyed a few with incorrect settings.

I'll just post a few here if I can salvage anything.

[Boner M]

Since he hasn't made anything good in 25 years I'm gonna say no.
They Live and Prince of Darkness?

[dmk]

Does anyone have any hope for Carpenter's The Ward?
Besides me? Don't think so.

I'll probably end up praising it as high art when it eventually comes out here.

[soitgoes...]

They Live and Prince of Darkness?Since you have to go back to the 80's to counter my point, I'm gonna stand by my conclusion that no, his new film won't be worthwhile. As for the two films you mentioned: They Live is passable, not good. Prince of Darkness is unseen by me, so maybe I over stretched myself and should have settled on 23 years.

[Stay Puft]

Ho Yuhang, director of At the End of Daybreak, and his "Vote for Pedro (Pedro Costa, that is)" t-shirt. One of the TIFF programmers is on the left.

http://i35.tinypic.com/2rhtvkl.png

[Stay Puft]

I want to add that Ho Yuhang was one of the most colorful filmmakers I've seen at TIFF. I've never seen any of films before or even heard of him. I sought out At the End of Daybreak because of Kara Hui, who played the mother in the film, and who is one of my favorite HK screen actresses.

He gave a great talk about the film and answered audience questions with a mix of humility and self-deprecating humor. One of my friends apparently bumped into him on the subway later that day. Which reminds me of another unrelated incident...

The TIFF organizers lost track of Tian Zhuang Zhuang last year. He was supposed to be there to present his film, The Warrior and the Wolf (terrible film, by the way), but he decided to go exploring Toronto unsupervised and nobody could find him. I guess people liked the film, but they're all crazy. It's like an art film for furries.

[Stay Puft]

Ah, these terrible photos of mine. Forgive me, I seem to be in reminiscing mode now.

Here's Lu Chuan, director of such films as Kekexili: Mountain Patrol, talking to a group of Torontonians. He was in Toronto last year to present City of Life and Death. Good film! I'm not sure if it has been commercially released in North America yet, but I think a couple other Match Cut residents have seen it, yeah?

http://i33.tinypic.com/oh0fs.png

[dmk]

Since you have to go back to the 80's to counter my point, I'm gonna stand by my conclusion that no, his new film won't be worthwhile. As for the two films you mentioned: They Live is passable, not good. Prince of Darkness is unseen by me, so maybe I over stretched myself and should have settled on 23 years.
I won't mention Ghosts of Mars, although I'm fond of it, but what about Escape from LA and In the Mouth of Madness? Both kinda batshit-insane renditions/subversions of his former works that present more wit and energy than anything before it. I can't really see how anyone could not love these.

I never really understood why audiences started to ignore him. He has stayed as personal and individual as ever (bar Memoirs). There was a great piece in Film Comment that in a way discussed the audiences departure... I'll try to find it.

[Stay Puft]

I'd like to read that.

I've never been a fan of Carpenter, though, but I guess I owe a few of his films another chance. The Thing is the only one I really enjoyed. I was planning on skipping The Ward, sorry to say.

[Qrazy]

I won't mention Ghosts of Mars, although I'm fond of it, but what about Escape from LA and In the Mouth of Madness? Both kinda batshit-insane renditions/subversions of his former works that present more wit and energy than anything before it. I can't really see how anyone could not love these.


I enjoy both but I certainly don't love either.

[dmk]

Film Comment:
Jan/Feb 1999
American Movie Classic: John Carpenter

By Kent Jones

America doesn’t have so many great directors to spare that it can afford to let John Carpenter fall through the cracks. Should that come to pass, and it almost has, he’ll have the last laugh: the work will speak for itself. But how did he come to be so marginalized? The common wisdom is that Carpenter went into a precipitous decline after the glory days of ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 and HALLOWEEN, but can anyone really back up such a snap assessment? Is there any other kind of assessment in current film culture? Examine his oeuvre carefully and you’ll realize that he has one of the most consistent and coherent bodies of work in modern cinema, in which the triumphs – those two early slam dunks, THE FOG, ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK, THE THING, PRINCE OF DARKNESS, THEY LIVE, and IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS – far out-number the minor or problematic films. He’s never done anything to be ashamed of. He’s never made a dishonest film or even a lazy one. Even his Universal-ly ignored remake of VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED is beautifully crafted, with a brilliant opening 20 minutes in the bargain.

I would say that Carpenter’s marginalization is due to something less easily identifiable and much sadder, over which he has no control. Whether we like it or not, we attune ourselves to norms and paradigms in filmmaking as they shift like tectonic plates, making unconscious adjustments in our heads about how to watch films and see them in relation to one another. And without knowing it, many of us do something that we often revile in others: we make allowances for fashion. There is no doubt that the fashions of American cinema have shifted thousands of miles away from John Carpenter. He’s an analog man in a digital world, who measures his own work according to criteria of value that few people pay attention to anymore.

Carpenter stands completely and utterly alone as the last genre filmmaker in America. There is no one else left who does what he does –not Hill, not Cronenberg, not De Palma, not Ferrara, not Dahl, not even Craven, all of whom pass through their respective genres with ulterior motives or as specialty acts, treating those genres as netherworlds to be escaped to, museums ready to be plundered. When we speak of genre films today, we are basically talking about a precedent set in Europe by Melville and Leone, standardized by Hill with THE DRIVER, banalized by Kasdan with BODY HEAT, and made into an artform by Tarantino a little over a decade later. In other words, the “meta-genre� film, which rose from the ashes of the genuine article after it was destroyed by the increasingly reductive economic structure of the business. Beyond late-night cable filler, genre exercises are now a matter of either cannily exploiting (Craven) or greedily satisfying (I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER) the demands of young audiences. Most of the great genre films of the last twenty years –UNFORGIVEN, AFTER DARK MY SWEET, NEAR DARK, BLUE STEEL – are isolated gestures, just like everything else in American film right now. It’s a situation that effectively nullifies the give-and-take with an audience necessary for the survival of any genre. The one thread that everyone follows at the moment, the only common currency, is currency itself. Until the structure of the business changes, all other trends or tendencies will be nothing more than fodder for the Arts and Leisure section. The only other recent development, irony, already seems to be on its way out. In a moment when isolated gestures are proliferating, why not behave as Carpenter does, remaining content to work in the manner of an Ulmer or a Siodmak, whose artistry is focused on satisfying genre conventions and the demands of narrative, and whose loftier preoccupations are filtered through said conventions? Why not behave as though events like INDEPENDENCE DAY and INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE never happened, as though there were still a vast popular audience tuned to the niceties and subtleties available within genre formulae? Perhaps what makes Carpenter such an unpalatable figure for so many people is the fact that he came out of the same film school generation as Coppola and Scorsese with nary a trace of Europeanism in his work. Carpenter may be the only filmmaker who learned from auteurism, who benefited from it, and who ignored its key tenet of the director as central event, divorced from commercial and industrial considerations. There’s something moving and yet a little off about his humility, the sense that he truly relishes the image of the artist locked into a system, satisfying its demands and complying with its rules.

Paradoxically, it’s these historically obsolete, self-imposed limitations that have allowed Carpenter to stay true to himself. His patient, spatially precise, and exquisitely troubling films have a reclusive air about them, as though they were the work of a man who lived by the heraldic codes or the teachings of Epicurus. While his contemporaries have been endlessly mythicizing old stereotypes and, in the process, draining them of whatever juice they had left, Carpenter has been able to swim effortlessly from one bewitching generic variation to another. He understands that a genre amounts to more than its iconography, that it can transcend itself only when it sticks rigorously to its own rules. Which leaves him unable to do something as outrageously and thrillingly inflated as MILLER’S CROSSING, but then he’ll never have a HUDSUCKER PROXY, either. His recent VAMPIRES is an attempt to beat Rodriguez and Tarantino at their own game, and in the process he cultivates something that is actually quite foreign to him: total mayhem. But even here, Carpenter sticks to his guns by making James Woods’s hunter into a sociopathic crusader with a band of followers who take evil at face value. In one sense, his films feel like pieces of scrimshaw or model schooners built in bottles – lonely, gorgeously solipsistic enterprises. In another sense, with the task at hand utterly precise and clear, he is able to communicate with his audience with a clarity that few of his fellow filmmakers can muster. Occasionally, as in THEY LIVE or IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS, he is able to sneak in an act of subversion and speak more directly to contemporary affairs than anyone else in American commercial cinema. In other words, in the same spirit with which it used to be said of Edgar G. Ulmer or Phil Karlson, John Carpenter is an auteur.

He is also the widescreen master of contemporary cinema. With the exceptions of DARK STAR and his terrific TV Films (ELVIS, SOMEONE IS WATCHING ME, and two episodes of BODY BAGS, the trilogy he produced for HBO), everything in his oeuvre from ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 (76) to VAMPIRES (98) was shot anamorphically, and the 2.35:1 aspect ratio is a shape that he clearly understands and feels at home with. Along with Minnelli in his Fifties melodramas and the Resnais of LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD, Carpenter is one of the only filmmakers who bring the shape to life, just as the 1.85 aspect ratio becomes a living entity in Spielberg’s work and 1.33 does in Murnau and Lang. The Scope frame is often associated with deserts and windswept vistas, a matter of volume, value, spectacle, and touristic epic sweep. Not to deny David Lean his place in history, but in comparison to Carpenter his “immaculate craftsmanship� is alienated and plodding – Alma Tadema to Carpenter’s Homer.

One of the glories of Carpenter’s oeuvre is watching the thrill he gets out of adapting the Scope frame to a variety of topographies and climates: the blankest, most desolate urban wasteland at night (ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13); the tree-lined streets of a small Midwestern town (HALLOWEEN); the luminous beachheads and rolling hills of coastal northern California (THE FOG, VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED); the snowscapes of British Columbia and Alaska standing in for Antarctica (THE THING); the inside of a dank, dilapidated church (PRINCE OF DARKNESS); the saddest, most pathetic sections of L.A. (THEY LIVE); the monied sections of San Francisco (MEMOIRS OF AN INVISIBLE MAN); the reddish, sun-parched flatness of the Southwest (VAMPIRES). STARMAN, the most thematically maddening film Carpenter ever made, might also be his most sheerly beautiful. Supposedly an act of atonement for his starkly frightening, commercially disastrous remake of THE THING and one of his biggest hits, STARMAN feels like a piece of New Age hokum fifteen years after its release.

But it’s also a serenely concentrated road movie, a child’s vision of America at night without the Spielberg glow, from the rolling greenery of Wisconsin to spacious western truck stops to the hushed, gorgeous light of Arizona. The revolting plot mechanics are almost redeemed by Carpenter’s very private sense of decorum, in which the action of any scene is carefully filtered into the visual tone of the setting and the overall arc and pace of the film: he never spotlights an actor or an object within the frame for any longer than the pace will allow, and one is always left with the impression of a field of interlocking actions rather than prized moves or compositions. Carpenter never attempts the kind of exploratory, digressive moves within a scene that were the hallmark of his hero and alleged role model, Howard Hawks. And the lack of relaxation and breathing room can get a little oppressive at times – particularly in ASSAULT ON PRICINCT 13, where the action is preternaturally straightforward and the acting almost nonexistent. But in STARMAN his extreme economy offsets the gooey mid-Eighties modishness, while said economy is in turn offset by the charm of Bridges's precise awkwardness and Allen’s wide-eyed beauty. And Carpenter doesn’t cheat in an area that most directors would have whimsically fudged their way through: when the alien arrives in Allen’s house, she is genuinely terrified at the possibility that she is face to face with real evil.

STARMAN actually contains one of the most beautiful passages in Carpenter’s oeuvre. After Allen’s Jenny has been shot, the alien carries her away to a mobile home that is being driven west. He works his healing wonders, all acted without a shred of sanctimoniousness by Bridges. Carpenter cuts with equal measures of discretion and rapture to landscapes of muted, almost austere beauty as the truck passes through them and night gives way to morning.

The scene is fairly typical of Carpenter: ingeniously calibrated and rhythmed, nicely textured, with a strange coordination between people and inanimate objects. It’s the sweet flipside of the presence of evil on Halloween eve in Haddonfield, Illinois, signaled through the sudden appearance of a partially hidden figure in the corner of the Scope frame, or a slight pan that makes the frame’s edge into an unexpected locus of fear.

HALLOWEEN, still Carpenter’s biggest moneymaker, looks more impressive with each passing year: a perfectly coordinated succession of counterpoints between slow lateral tracking movements, subjective forward moves via the Panaglide, and sudden vertical jolts within the frame (the killer jumping onto the car, lifting up the hunky boyfriend), in which every object and every street-corner is perfectly described, the human action serving as a form of punctuation. In fact, much of Carpenter’s cinema is close to a realization of the dream of directors in their dotage like Fuller and Fellini, who wanted to make films about objects, devoid of people.

At his most comfortable with deadline structures and severely fixed passages of time (Snake Plissken has 24 hours to get out of New York and L.A., Michael Myers has to be found before Halloween night is over, the Starman has to get back to Winslow, Arizona, to meet his fellow aliens, the PRINCE OF DARKNESS team has only a small window of opportunity to keep the devil out of this world), Carpenter has a tendency to turn every space into a grid (or, in IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS, the accumulation of spaces throughout the film). ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 might be the most severe action movie ever made. The severity of the design is so extreme that it takes on a real purity, never more so than during the extraordinary shootout that climaxes with silenced bullets quietly hitting glass, venetian blinds, and, most bewitchingly of all, stacks of bureaucratic paper sent flying through the air (there’s something deeply satisfying about the “ptt-ptt-ptt� sound the bullets make as they strike). ASSAULT is supposed to be inspired by RIO BRAVO, to which it bears the same kind of relationship as a Di Suvero sculpture does to Van Gogh’s sunflowers. Homage becomes abstraction, and an entirely new object is created in the process. Nothing could be further from Hawks than this expertly mechanized standoff between the ragtag, makeshift band that assembles under the banner of good and the shadowy, perfectly synchronized, seemingly endless army of pure evil, a sudden threat that materializes out of nowhere and leaves its first and most lasting impression with the sudden shooting of a little girl eating an ice cream cone.

Anyone who’s seen the film will never forget this moment, which is immediately branded on your consciousness. Everything about the scene is clear to the point of transparency: the plot mechanics, the horizon lines of the ghetto at dusk, the heavily singularized acting, the evenness of the pace (and of Carpenter’s typically spare synthesizer score), and the quiet burst of the gun with its long silencer held by a languorously extended arm, quickly followed by the sudden bloom of red on the girl’s chest and the blank surprise on her face as she crumples to the sidewalk. There’s something uniquely disturbing about ASSAULT, with its blunt opposition of moves and countermoves. The film has the undiluted force of a terse, savage two-note guitar break. It’s an odd starting point (DARK STAR being a kind of false start, filled as it is with Dan O’Bannon’s high school prankishness, but an ingenious film nonetheless), and its punishing concentration appears to originate from something mysterious, troublingly personal. Why create such a blunt instrument? It’s easy to see why ASSAULT was rejected by American audiences on its first release: Carpenter needed the human ballast of Jamie Lee Curtis, the mature Kurt Russell, or the total-pro hamminess of Donald Pleasence. THE THING, PRINCE OF DARKNESS, and, to a slightly lesser extent, VAMPIRES also move in this stripped-down direction. They share a tone unique in the cinema: hermitlike, unadorned, genuinely terrifying, and genuinely terrified.

Cocteau advised all artists to happily imitate their masters, which would eventually open the door to personal expression. It’s a fascinating lesson to study Carpenter and his Hawks fixation, his use of groups “tough women,� and task-oriented action, and then to realize how far apart the two directs are. If there’s any filmmaker that Carpenter resembles at all, it’s Jacques Tourneur. Both are genre filmmakers with an innate sense of visual beauty that saves even lesser films, like ANNE OF THE INDIES or BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA; acting is low on the totem pole for both of them; both are temperamentally fixed on the perfection of an exact tone or line – in Tourneur’s case it’s laid over the action, while in Carpenter’s case it’s blended into it. But whereas Tourneur cultivates the supernatural and is preoccupied with the mystery of drives and impulses (Simone Simon’s longings in CAT PEOPLE, Mitchum’s self-destructive attraction to Greer in OUT OF THE PAST), Carpenter is one of the few modern artists whose subject is the contemplation of true evil, or to be more precise, the stance that people take when they come face to face with true evil. Among the most tiresome contemporary clichés is “the banality of evil,� the idea that it exists within all of us and can be sparked by random events – thus the serial killer as object of God-like veneration. For Carpenter, evil is horrifying enough even if it’s outside of us; his characters never court evil, but simply recognize it, which is the moment of absolute horror. His films are filled with moments of paralyzing immobility, of dry-mouthed discomfort brought about by the realization that there is something new and awful in the world. It’s completely foreign to Hawks, where all the energy goes into the beauty of people in action, and the conflict is nothing more than a useful MacGuffin (although it’s very close to Marlowe’s contemplation of Canino in THE BIG SLEEP). In Carpenter, there is a unique mixture of dread and awe, followed by the time taken to sort out the two and muster up self-preservation.

This is one of the many reasons why THE THING is so vastly different from the Hawks original. Even Carpenter’s admirers had a tough time with the aggressive presence of the Rob Bottin/Albert Whitlock special effects in that film, but what makes the effects resonate is the care given to the individual reactions as the Thing undergoes its transformations, and as it becomes clear that it could become anyone at any time (the very un-Hawks-like idea that Carpenter retained from the original story). Even David Clennon’s exclamation of “You’ve gotta be fucking kidding me!� as he sees his former comrade’s head sprout insect legs plays less like a one-liner and more like the spontaneous reaction to something hitherto impossible in reality. THE THING now looks like one of Carpenter’s best films, easily the winner of the early-Eighties mutating-carcass competition. And it occupies a special place in his oeuvre for the sensitivity of its ensemble acting, albeit geared in one heavily singularized direction.

The many forms that evil can take, the many places in which it can appear, the infinite ways in which it can announce itself, the ease with which it can blend into the rhythms and atmospheres of everyday life – this is Carpenter’s focus, and the moral clarity that he brings to that focus is what makes him a great director. Adrienne Barbeau’s slow walk down the stairs to her lighthouse radio station, with its odd sensation of reality peeling away its skin, in THE FOG; a reanimated zombie standing before a mirror, in PRINCE OF DARKNESS, and shivering with a nameless, inarticulate longing for what lies on the other side; the world suddenly turning blue at the will and ease of a demonic novelist, in IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS – these are moments unlike any others in American cinema, where the balance between legibility and fluidity, between the real and the ir-real, is perfectly achieved and held.

The political side of Carpenter’s cinema grows directly out of his contemplation of evil. The liberal credentials of ASSAULT, THEY LIVE, and the two ESCAPE movies have been called into question by some critics, but strict political interpretation is always a losing game when you’re dealing with genre filmmaking. For me there’s something so powerful about the concrete fact of urban desolation in those films – an expressionist construction in the two ESCAPES (New York in particular has some of the clean, graphic power of the late-silent Lang) and a piercing reality in ASSAULT and the absurdly neglected THEY LIVE. What a shock it was (and still is!) to see Reagan’s America confronted head-on in a low-rent sci-fi epic staring Rowdy Roddy Piper. The premise of THEY LIVE – that aliens are hiding behind human masks, enslaving America with subliminal messages and can only be detected with special glasses that are being distributed by subversive cells around the country – is pretty close to Romero without the excess, a provocative metaphor for a thinly veiled reality. But what really makes the film so affecting is its feeling for the acrid tastes and smells of life on the margins, its boisterous physicality (yes, that is the longest fight scene in movie history between Piper and Keith David, with his terrific slow burn sneer), its sense of hollow, lapping desperation, its sad prole poetry. Who else had the cunning, the compassion, the ingenuity, and the efficiency to fashion an ode to the working class during such a rock-bottom, sickeningly cheerful moment in American history? Similarly, the metaphor for media saturation and paralysis in IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS (the books of a King-ish writer named Sutter Cane literally drive people insane) seems a bit straightforward simply taken on its own. But the way Carpenter delineates the experience of going mad, in which a world seen through long lenses keeps ripping away its cheap surfaces to reveal more cheap surfaces underneath, is a brilliant feat of low-budget engineering and a very disturbing encapsulation of the experience of living amidst so many media and their endless supply of product.

Forget the frequently adolescent sensibility that finds its outlet in BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA, ESCAPE FROM L.A., and VAMPIRES. Forget the occasionally clunky orchestration of parallel events. Forget the variable success of the special effects – for every STARMAN or THE THING, there’s an ESCAPE FROM L.A. with its computer-game landscapes, a PRINCE OF DARKNESS with its zombies trundling down the street, or an IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS with its rubber monsters (although in that film the cheesiness of the monsters is part of the subject, and is almost overcome by the tautness of the conception). Forget the frequently monotonal characters and acting. Allowances are constantly being made for enshrined directors like Aldrich, Karlson, and Fuller, whose inconsistencies and weaknesses are forever being papered over and reconstituted as “idiosyncrasies,� or strengths. Why not make the same kind of allowances for this modest filmmaker who carries the phantom (and perhaps illusory- camaraderie and selfless devotion to the public of the Golden Age of Hollywood in his head? His devoted fans excepted, Carpenter is indeed a bum in America, on the one hand damned for being modest and on the other damned for not being modest enough. But if auteurism taught us any lessons at all, it’s that modesty and ambition, prose and poetry, the concrete and the abstract, can walk hand in hand in the least likely places. A paradox. This relic, so self-contained, so respectful of the rules that his elders were obliged to play by, makes films that are often more acutely intelligent than anything his less constrained contemporaries can manage.

Another American solitary, falling out of fashion but carefully guarding his integrity like a dusty old treasure.

[Stay Puft]

This is the first row view in the Ryerson, home of Midnight Madness.

http://i34.tinypic.com/11ui793.png

On stage is a TIFF programmer (left) with Fatih Akin and Adam Bousdoukos for a Q&A for Soul Kitchen. I believe the film has just received a commercial release in North America. As I said in E's thread, the film is a lot of fun, but I do not think it as trivial as others. There is a place for it in Akin's filmography, and I would say it is probably my favorite after Head-On.

It was weird watching this film and seeing the complete non-reaction to Udo Kier's presence. The final credit sequence displays each of the actors in turn, and every image was met with enthusiastic applause from the audience... until Udo Kier. The audience went silent.

I was at the FanExpo in Toronto a month earlier, and Udo Kier was actually there in person. There was a row of tables with a bunch of celebrities signing autographs, and hundreds of patrons were getting in lines to meet every celebrity... except Udo Kier, who was sitting there looking bored out of his mind.

Poor Udo Kier!

[Boner M]

Film Comment:
Jan/Feb 1999
American Movie Classic: John Carpenter

By Kent Jones

America doesn’t have so many great directors to spare that it can afford to let John Carpenter fall through the cracks. Should that come to pass, and it almost has, he’ll have the last laugh: the work will speak for itself. But how did he come to be so marginalized? The common wisdom is that Carpenter went into a precipitous decline after the glory days of ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 and HALLOWEEN, but can anyone really back up such a snap assessment? Is there any other kind of assessment in current film culture? Examine his oeuvre carefully and you’ll realize that he has one of the most consistent and coherent bodies of work in modern cinema, in which the triumphs – those two early slam dunks, THE FOG, ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK, THE THING, PRINCE OF DARKNESS, THEY LIVE, and IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS – far out-number the minor or problematic films. He’s never done anything to be ashamed of. He’s never made a dishonest film or even a lazy one. Even his Universal-ly ignored remake of VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED is beautifully crafted, with a brilliant opening 20 minutes in the bargain.

I would say that Carpenter’s marginalization is due to something less easily identifiable and much sadder, over which he has no control. Whether we like it or not, we attune ourselves to norms and paradigms in filmmaking as they shift like tectonic plates, making unconscious adjustments in our heads about how to watch films and see them in relation to one another. And without knowing it, many of us do something that we often revile in others: we make allowances for fashion. There is no doubt that the fashions of American cinema have shifted thousands of miles away from John Carpenter. He’s an analog man in a digital world, who measures his own work according to criteria of value that few people pay attention to anymore.

Carpenter stands completely and utterly alone as the last genre filmmaker in America. There is no one else left who does what he does –not Hill, not Cronenberg, not De Palma, not Ferrara, not Dahl, not even Craven, all of whom pass through their respective genres with ulterior motives or as specialty acts, treating those genres as netherworlds to be escaped to, museums ready to be plundered. When we speak of genre films today, we are basically talking about a precedent set in Europe by Melville and Leone, standardized by Hill with THE DRIVER, banalized by Kasdan with BODY HEAT, and made into an artform by Tarantino a little over a decade later. In other words, the “meta-genre� film, which rose from the ashes of the genuine article after it was destroyed by the increasingly reductive economic structure of the business. Beyond late-night cable filler, genre exercises are now a matter of either cannily exploiting (Craven) or greedily satisfying (I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER) the demands of young audiences. Most of the great genre films of the last twenty years –UNFORGIVEN, AFTER DARK MY SWEET, NEAR DARK, BLUE STEEL – are isolated gestures, just like everything else in American film right now. It’s a situation that effectively nullifies the give-and-take with an audience necessary for the survival of any genre. The one thread that everyone follows at the moment, the only common currency, is currency itself. Until the structure of the business changes, all other trends or tendencies will be nothing more than fodder for the Arts and Leisure section. The only other recent development, irony, already seems to be on its way out. In a moment when isolated gestures are proliferating, why not behave as Carpenter does, remaining content to work in the manner of an Ulmer or a Siodmak, whose artistry is focused on satisfying genre conventions and the demands of narrative, and whose loftier preoccupations are filtered through said conventions? Why not behave as though events like INDEPENDENCE DAY and INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE never happened, as though there were still a vast popular audience tuned to the niceties and subtleties available within genre formulae? Perhaps what makes Carpenter such an unpalatable figure for so many people is the fact that he came out of the same film school generation as Coppola and Scorsese with nary a trace of Europeanism in his work. Carpenter may be the only filmmaker who learned from auteurism, who benefited from it, and who ignored its key tenet of the director as central event, divorced from commercial and industrial considerations. There’s something moving and yet a little off about his humility, the sense that he truly relishes the image of the artist locked into a system, satisfying its demands and complying with its rules.

Paradoxically, it’s these historically obsolete, self-imposed limitations that have allowed Carpenter to stay true to himself. His patient, spatially precise, and exquisitely troubling films have a reclusive air about them, as though they were the work of a man who lived by the heraldic codes or the teachings of Epicurus. While his contemporaries have been endlessly mythicizing old stereotypes and, in the process, draining them of whatever juice they had left, Carpenter has been able to swim effortlessly from one bewitching generic variation to another. He understands that a genre amounts to more than its iconography, that it can transcend itself only when it sticks rigorously to its own rules. Which leaves him unable to do something as outrageously and thrillingly inflated as MILLER’S CROSSING, but then he’ll never have a HUDSUCKER PROXY, either. His recent VAMPIRES is an attempt to beat Rodriguez and Tarantino at their own game, and in the process he cultivates something that is actually quite foreign to him: total mayhem. But even here, Carpenter sticks to his guns by making James Woods’s hunter into a sociopathic crusader with a band of followers who take evil at face value. In one sense, his films feel like pieces of scrimshaw or model schooners built in bottles – lonely, gorgeously solipsistic enterprises. In another sense, with the task at hand utterly precise and clear, he is able to communicate with his audience with a clarity that few of his fellow filmmakers can muster. Occasionally, as in THEY LIVE or IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS, he is able to sneak in an act of subversion and speak more directly to contemporary affairs than anyone else in American commercial cinema. In other words, in the same spirit with which it used to be said of Edgar G. Ulmer or Phil Karlson, John Carpenter is an auteur.

He is also the widescreen master of contemporary cinema. With the exceptions of DARK STAR and his terrific TV Films (ELVIS, SOMEONE IS WATCHING ME, and two episodes of BODY BAGS, the trilogy he produced for HBO), everything in his oeuvre from ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 (76) to VAMPIRES (98) was shot anamorphically, and the 2.35:1 aspect ratio is a shape that he clearly understands and feels at home with. Along with Minnelli in his Fifties melodramas and the Resnais of LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD, Carpenter is one of the only filmmakers who bring the shape to life, just as the 1.85 aspect ratio becomes a living entity in Spielberg’s work and 1.33 does in Murnau and Lang. The Scope frame is often associated with deserts and windswept vistas, a matter of volume, value, spectacle, and touristic epic sweep. Not to deny David Lean his place in history, but in comparison to Carpenter his “immaculate craftsmanship� is alienated and plodding – Alma Tadema to Carpenter’s Homer.

One of the glories of Carpenter’s oeuvre is watching the thrill he gets out of adapting the Scope frame to a variety of topographies and climates: the blankest, most desolate urban wasteland at night (ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13); the tree-lined streets of a small Midwestern town (HALLOWEEN); the luminous beachheads and rolling hills of coastal northern California (THE FOG, VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED); the snowscapes of British Columbia and Alaska standing in for Antarctica (THE THING); the inside of a dank, dilapidated church (PRINCE OF DARKNESS); the saddest, most pathetic sections of L.A. (THEY LIVE); the monied sections of San Francisco (MEMOIRS OF AN INVISIBLE MAN); the reddish, sun-parched flatness of the Southwest (VAMPIRES). STARMAN, the most thematically maddening film Carpenter ever made, might also be his most sheerly beautiful. Supposedly an act of atonement for his starkly frightening, commercially disastrous remake of THE THING and one of his biggest hits, STARMAN feels like a piece of New Age hokum fifteen years after its release.

But it’s also a serenely concentrated road movie, a child’s vision of America at night without the Spielberg glow, from the rolling greenery of Wisconsin to spacious western truck stops to the hushed, gorgeous light of Arizona. The revolting plot mechanics are almost redeemed by Carpenter’s very private sense of decorum, in which the action of any scene is carefully filtered into the visual tone of the setting and the overall arc and pace of the film: he never spotlights an actor or an object within the frame for any longer than the pace will allow, and one is always left with the impression of a field of interlocking actions rather than prized moves or compositions. Carpenter never attempts the kind of exploratory, digressive moves within a scene that were the hallmark of his hero and alleged role model, Howard Hawks. And the lack of relaxation and breathing room can get a little oppressive at times – particularly in ASSAULT ON PRICINCT 13, where the action is preternaturally straightforward and the acting almost nonexistent. But in STARMAN his extreme economy offsets the gooey mid-Eighties modishness, while said economy is in turn offset by the charm of Bridges's precise awkwardness and Allen’s wide-eyed beauty. And Carpenter doesn’t cheat in an area that most directors would have whimsically fudged their way through: when the alien arrives in Allen’s house, she is genuinely terrified at the possibility that she is face to face with real evil.

STARMAN actually contains one of the most beautiful passages in Carpenter’s oeuvre. After Allen’s Jenny has been shot, the alien carries her away to a mobile home that is being driven west. He works his healing wonders, all acted without a shred of sanctimoniousness by Bridges. Carpenter cuts with equal measures of discretion and rapture to landscapes of muted, almost austere beauty as the truck passes through them and night gives way to morning.

The scene is fairly typical of Carpenter: ingeniously calibrated and rhythmed, nicely textured, with a strange coordination between people and inanimate objects. It’s the sweet flipside of the presence of evil on Halloween eve in Haddonfield, Illinois, signaled through the sudden appearance of a partially hidden figure in the corner of the Scope frame, or a slight pan that makes the frame’s edge into an unexpected locus of fear.

HALLOWEEN, still Carpenter’s biggest moneymaker, looks more impressive with each passing year: a perfectly coordinated succession of counterpoints between slow lateral tracking movements, subjective forward moves via the Panaglide, and sudden vertical jolts within the frame (the killer jumping onto the car, lifting up the hunky boyfriend), in which every object and every street-corner is perfectly described, the human action serving as a form of punctuation. In fact, much of Carpenter’s cinema is close to a realization of the dream of directors in their dotage like Fuller and Fellini, who wanted to make films about objects, devoid of people.

At his most comfortable with deadline structures and severely fixed passages of time (Snake Plissken has 24 hours to get out of New York and L.A., Michael Myers has to be found before Halloween night is over, the Starman has to get back to Winslow, Arizona, to meet his fellow aliens, the PRINCE OF DARKNESS team has only a small window of opportunity to keep the devil out of this world), Carpenter has a tendency to turn every space into a grid (or, in IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS, the accumulation of spaces throughout the film). ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 might be the most severe action movie ever made. The severity of the design is so extreme that it takes on a real purity, never more so than during the extraordinary shootout that climaxes with silenced bullets quietly hitting glass, venetian blinds, and, most bewitchingly of all, stacks of bureaucratic paper sent flying through the air (there’s something deeply satisfying about the “ptt-ptt-ptt� sound the bullets make as they strike). ASSAULT is supposed to be inspired by RIO BRAVO, to which it bears the same kind of relationship as a Di Suvero sculpture does to Van Gogh’s sunflowers. Homage becomes abstraction, and an entirely new object is created in the process. Nothing could be further from Hawks than this expertly mechanized standoff between the ragtag, makeshift band that assembles under the banner of good and the shadowy, perfectly synchronized, seemingly endless army of pure evil, a sudden threat that materializes out of nowhere and leaves its first and most lasting impression with the sudden shooting of a little girl eating an ice cream cone.

Anyone who’s seen the film will never forget this moment, which is immediately branded on your consciousness. Everything about the scene is clear to the point of transparency: the plot mechanics, the horizon lines of the ghetto at dusk, the heavily singularized acting, the evenness of the pace (and of Carpenter’s typically spare synthesizer score), and the quiet burst of the gun with its long silencer held by a languorously extended arm, quickly followed by the sudden bloom of red on the girl’s chest and the blank surprise on her face as she crumples to the sidewalk. There’s something uniquely disturbing about ASSAULT, with its blunt opposition of moves and countermoves. The film has the undiluted force of a terse, savage two-note guitar break. It’s an odd starting point (DARK STAR being a kind of false start, filled as it is with Dan O’Bannon’s high school prankishness, but an ingenious film nonetheless), and its punishing concentration appears to originate from something mysterious, troublingly personal. Why create such a blunt instrument? It’s easy to see why ASSAULT was rejected by American audiences on its first release: Carpenter needed the human ballast of Jamie Lee Curtis, the mature Kurt Russell, or the total-pro hamminess of Donald Pleasence. THE THING, PRINCE OF DARKNESS, and, to a slightly lesser extent, VAMPIRES also move in this stripped-down direction. They share a tone unique in the cinema: hermitlike, unadorned, genuinely terrifying, and genuinely terrified.

Cocteau advised all artists to happily imitate their masters, which would eventually open the door to personal expression. It’s a fascinating lesson to study Carpenter and his Hawks fixation, his use of groups “tough women,� and task-oriented action, and then to realize how far apart the two directs are. If there’s any filmmaker that Carpenter resembles at all, it’s Jacques Tourneur. Both are genre filmmakers with an innate sense of visual beauty that saves even lesser films, like ANNE OF THE INDIES or BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA; acting is low on the totem pole for both of them; both are temperamentally fixed on the perfection of an exact tone or line – in Tourneur’s case it’s laid over the action, while in Carpenter’s case it’s blended into it. But whereas Tourneur cultivates the supernatural and is preoccupied with the mystery of drives and impulses (Simone Simon’s longings in CAT PEOPLE, Mitchum’s self-destructive attraction to Greer in OUT OF THE PAST), Carpenter is one of the few modern artists whose subject is the contemplation of true evil, or to be more precise, the stance that people take when they come face to face with true evil. Among the most tiresome contemporary clichés is “the banality of evil,� the idea that it exists within all of us and can be sparked by random events – thus the serial killer as object of God-like veneration. For Carpenter, evil is horrifying enough even if it’s outside of us; his characters never court evil, but simply recognize it, which is the moment of absolute horror. His films are filled with moments of paralyzing immobility, of dry-mouthed discomfort brought about by the realization that there is something new and awful in the world. It’s completely foreign to Hawks, where all the energy goes into the beauty of people in action, and the conflict is nothing more than a useful MacGuffin (although it’s very close to Marlowe’s contemplation of Canino in THE BIG SLEEP). In Carpenter, there is a unique mixture of dread and awe, followed by the time taken to sort out the two and muster up self-preservation.

This is one of the many reasons why THE THING is so vastly different from the Hawks original. Even Carpenter’s admirers had a tough time with the aggressive presence of the Rob Bottin/Albert Whitlock special effects in that film, but what makes the effects resonate is the care given to the individual reactions as the Thing undergoes its transformations, and as it becomes clear that it could become anyone at any time (the very un-Hawks-like idea that Carpenter retained from the original story). Even David Clennon’s exclamation of “You’ve gotta be fucking kidding me!� as he sees his former comrade’s head sprout insect legs plays less like a one-liner and more like the spontaneous reaction to something hitherto impossible in reality. THE THING now looks like one of Carpenter’s best films, easily the winner of the early-Eighties mutating-carcass competition. And it occupies a special place in his oeuvre for the sensitivity of its ensemble acting, albeit geared in one heavily singularized direction.

The many forms that evil can take, the many places in which it can appear, the infinite ways in which it can announce itself, the ease with which it can blend into the rhythms and atmospheres of everyday life – this is Carpenter’s focus, and the moral clarity that he brings to that focus is what makes him a great director. Adrienne Barbeau’s slow walk down the stairs to her lighthouse radio station, with its odd sensation of reality peeling away its skin, in THE FOG; a reanimated zombie standing before a mirror, in PRINCE OF DARKNESS, and shivering with a nameless, inarticulate longing for what lies on the other side; the world suddenly turning blue at the will and ease of a demonic novelist, in IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS – these are moments unlike any others in American cinema, where the balance between legibility and fluidity, between the real and the ir-real, is perfectly achieved and held.

The political side of Carpenter’s cinema grows directly out of his contemplation of evil. The liberal credentials of ASSAULT, THEY LIVE, and the two ESCAPE movies have been called into question by some critics, but strict political interpretation is always a losing game when you’re dealing with genre filmmaking. For me there’s something so powerful about the concrete fact of urban desolation in those films – an expressionist construction in the two ESCAPES (New York in particular has some of the clean, graphic power of the late-silent Lang) and a piercing reality in ASSAULT and the absurdly neglected THEY LIVE. What a shock it was (and still is!) to see Reagan’s America confronted head-on in a low-rent sci-fi epic staring Rowdy Roddy Piper. The premise of THEY LIVE – that aliens are hiding behind human masks, enslaving America with subliminal messages and can only be detected with special glasses that are being distributed by subversive cells around the country – is pretty close to Romero without the excess, a provocative metaphor for a thinly veiled reality. But what really makes the film so affecting is its feeling for the acrid tastes and smells of life on the margins, its boisterous physicality (yes, that is the longest fight scene in movie history between Piper and Keith David, with his terrific slow burn sneer), its sense of hollow, lapping desperation, its sad prole poetry. Who else had the cunning, the compassion, the ingenuity, and the efficiency to fashion an ode to the working class during such a rock-bottom, sickeningly cheerful moment in American history? Similarly, the metaphor for media saturation and paralysis in IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS (the books of a King-ish writer named Sutter Cane literally drive people insane) seems a bit straightforward simply taken on its own. But the way Carpenter delineates the experience of going mad, in which a world seen through long lenses keeps ripping away its cheap surfaces to reveal more cheap surfaces underneath, is a brilliant feat of low-budget engineering and a very disturbing encapsulation of the experience of living amidst so many media and their endless supply of product.

Forget the frequently adolescent sensibility that finds its outlet in BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA, ESCAPE FROM L.A., and VAMPIRES. Forget the occasionally clunky orchestration of parallel events. Forget the variable success of the special effects – for every STARMAN or THE THING, there’s an ESCAPE FROM L.A. with its computer-game landscapes, a PRINCE OF DARKNESS with its zombies trundling down the street, or an IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS with its rubber monsters (although in that film the cheesiness of the monsters is part of the subject, and is almost overcome by the tautness of the conception). Forget the frequently monotonal characters and acting. Allowances are constantly being made for enshrined directors like Aldrich, Karlson, and Fuller, whose inconsistencies and weaknesses are forever being papered over and reconstituted as “idiosyncrasies,� or strengths. Why not make the same kind of allowances for this modest filmmaker who carries the phantom (and perhaps illusory- camaraderie and selfless devotion to the public of the Golden Age of Hollywood in his head? His devoted fans excepted, Carpenter is indeed a bum in America, on the one hand damned for being modest and on the other damned for not being modest enough. But if auteurism taught us any lessons at all, it’s that modesty and ambition, prose and poetry, the concrete and the abstract, can walk hand in hand in the least likely places. A paradox. This relic, so self-contained, so respectful of the rules that his elders were obliged to play by, makes films that are often more acutely intelligent than anything his less constrained contemporaries can manage.

Another American solitary, falling out of fashion but carefully guarding his integrity like a dusty old treasure.
Oh, Kent. *dreamy sigh*

[Stay Puft]

There's a lot of obnoxious rhetoric in that Kent Jones article, but I do appreciate a couple of his points. I'll have to give Halloween and Escape from New York another look one of these days. I still haven't seen Assault on Precint 13, either.

[Qrazy]

There's a lot of obnoxious rhetoric in that Kent Jones article, but I do appreciate a couple of his points. I'll have to give Halloween and Escape from New York another look one of these days. I still haven't seen Assault on Precint 13, either.

Those are three of his four best films imo, with The Thing rounding out the list.

[Stay Puft]

Yes, as I said, I quite like The Thing, though it's the only one I'm enthusiastic about. The other two I mentioned are not bad, but I was not terribly impressed on initial viewings, either.

Whenever I think of Carpenter, I actually think of that post you made ragging on the compositions in The Fog. That nailed it for me (though to be fair, The Fog is the only one I actively dislike). I usually find his films flat and uninteresting to some degree (I remember thinking the action scenes near the end of Escape from New York were incredibly slack and bland, for example; it's been too long now to say anything specific about Halloween, and I don't want to be unfair).

I probably outright hate The Fog simply because it's a ghost story. Why are ghosts interested in re-arranging furniture? I don't understand anything about that genre, so I'm willing to ignore it and move on. (I will not be revisiting this one.)

[soitgoes...]

I won't mention Ghosts of Mars, although I'm fond of it, but what about Escape from LA and In the Mouth of Madness? Both kinda batshit-insane renditions/subversions of his former works that present more wit and energy than anything before it. I can't really see how anyone could not love these.

I never really understood why audiences started to ignore him. He has stayed as personal and individual as ever (bar Memoirs). There was a great piece in Film Comment that in a way discussed the audiences departure... I'll try to find it.How about this, his last film that I'd fall 100% on the positive side of ratings would have been Big Trouble in Little China, and that wasn't great by any means. You'd have to reach all the way back to The Thing before finding something he has done that I'd consider at least very good. It isn't like I'm new with the man either since I've seen 12 of his films.

And maybe my memory's a bit wonky (probably not), but Ghosts of Mars is far and away his worst film.

[Derek]

Complaining about compositions in The Fog?? Reeeeally? Visual evidence, screen caps, something...please, because I can't wrap my head around that one.

[Rowland]

Now we need Kiyoshi Kurosawa to show up and argue in favor of Carpenter's Village of the Damned over the comparatively minor Halloween (yes, he has stated this opinion).

I love The Fog. And as for his recent work, Ghosts of Mars is lame and largely absent of Carpenter's old flair, but it's semi-watchable in a late-night cable kinda way, Vampires is mean-spirited and tacky but exceedingly amusing, and Escape from LA is great fun and knowingly self-reflexive. I'd like to see In the Mouth of Madness again, and knowing Kurosawa's take on the VotD remake, I admit I'm curious enough to check it out eventually. Oh yeah, and that Masters of Horror episode with Udo Kier and the Boondock Saints douche was overrated.

[Chac Mool]

"The Stunt Man" -- what a strange, fun, twisty little movie. For the most part -- the first hour and a half, the performances (particularly O'Toole's, modeled on David Lean!), the great visuals and camerawork, and the screenwriting itself -- I loved it. I must admit, however, to being a little disappointed by...

...the ending. Tonally, it clashes with the most of what came before, and after so many hints that Lucky is a little "off", I can't help but think that the film could have had a much stronger impact had the final 10 minutes been more ambiguous, not so clear-cut and tidy.

In any case, a great little find. Highly recommended.

[Boner M]

"The Stunt Man" -- what a strange, fun, twisty little movie. For the most part -- the first hour and a half, the performances (particularly O'Toole's, modeled on David Lean!), the great visuals and camerawork, and the screenwriting itself -- I loved it. I must admit, however, to being a little disappointed by...

...the ending. Tonally, it clashes with the most of what came before, and after so many hints that Lucky is a little "off", I can't help but think that the film could have had a much stronger impact had the final 10 minutes been more ambiguous, not so clear-cut and tidy.

In any case, a great little find. Highly recommended.
Wrong thread! Although we're discussing Carpenter now so I dunno.

[Qrazy]

Complaining about compositions in The Fog?? Reeeeally? Visual evidence, screen caps, something...please, because I can't wrap my head around that one.

In the original thread I believe I was comparing it to what I felt were his stronger visual works (The Thing, Escape from New York, Assault on Precinct 13)... stronger in the sense that they are more visually consistent throughout the film. I acknowledged that The Fog has it's fair share of solid Carpenter compositions but that it's terribly uneven.

http://johneaves.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/f13.jpg?w=655&h=283

http://johneaves.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/f27.jpg?w=655&h=282

http://johneaves.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/f34.jpg?w=655&h=261

[Qrazy]

Yes, as I said, I quite like The Thing, though it's the only one I'm enthusiastic about. The other two I mentioned are not bad, but I was not terribly impressed on initial viewings, either.

Whenever I think of Carpenter, I actually think of that post you made ragging on the compositions in The Fog. That nailed it for me (though to be fair, The Fog is the only one I actively dislike). I usually find his films flat and uninteresting to some degree (I remember thinking the action scenes near the end of Escape from New York were incredibly slack and bland, for example; it's been too long now to say anything specific about Halloween, and I don't want to be unfair).


Fair enough, I mean the man has always been a cheese factory. I can fully understand someone not caring for his films at all. His humor, ability to make mundane objects creepy (ex: a mirror), and formal skills in his best work balance out and compliment the cheesiness of the experience for me though.

[Bosco B Thug]

Now we need Kiyoshi Kurosawa to show up and argue in favor of Carpenter's Village of the Damned over the comparatively minor Halloween (yes, he has stated this opinion). Are you taking this from my post on the topic way back when? Or another source? I did say he defended 'Village' and called 'Halloween' minor, but I don't think I gathered he preferred 'Village,' or placed it at the top of Carpenter's work. Maybe, though, guy's got wacky opinions.

Speaking of wacky opinions, I still think Ghosts of Mars is generally a much better picture than both Vampires and In the Mouth of Madness.


Fair enough, I mean the man has always been a cheese factory. I can fully understand someone not caring for his films at all. His humor, ability to make mundane objects creepy (ex: a mirror), and formal skills in his best work balance out and compliment the cheesiness of the experience for me though. Not disagreeing with you - I agree he's a cheese factory, and that The Fog is uneven - but I feel this is a good springboard for my following comment. The best thing about that Kent Jones essay is his practically saying (actually similar to what you say, initially...) that forsaking Carpenter for his flaws (stigmatized further as "genre" flaws) is automatically to favor mediocrity, because Carpenter is a true surviving remnant of that master-class of serious, rigorous filmmaking.

[Rowland]

Are you taking this from my post on the topic way back when? Or another source? I did say he defended 'Village' and called 'Halloween' minor, but I don't think I gathered he preferred 'Village,' or placed it at the top of Carpenter's work. Maybe, though, guy's got wacky opinions.Yes, actually. It left an impression on me, given that Halloween is one of my favorites, but I probably should have gone back to read your initial post more closely. Ah well.

[Rowland]

And while we're briefly on the topic of Carpenter, has anyone seen Starman? I've never been all that interested until I discovered it has a prominent placement on Ed Gonzalez's top ten for '84, so I've been meaning to watch it on Netflix Instant View.

[Bosco B Thug]

And while we're briefly on the topic of Carpenter, has anyone seen Starman? I've never been all that interested until I discovered it has a prominent placement on Ed Gonzalez's top ten for '84, so I've been meaning to watch it on Netflix Instant View. Nope, but Kent Jones saying it probably has Carpenter's most beatific moment - and I find Carpenter pulls off beatific quite well - is a good enticement.

And I would've by now, but my library uncharacteristically had the Full Screen DVD for some reason.

[Qrazy]

And while we're briefly on the topic of Carpenter, has anyone seen Starman? I've never been all that interested until I discovered it has a prominent placement on Ed Gonzalez's top ten for '84, so I've been meaning to watch it on Netflix Instant View.

Yes, it's a fairly decent sentimental small scale sci-fi. Watashi loves it I believe.

[soitgoes...]

Yes, it's a fairly decent sentimental small scale sci-fi. Watashi loves it I believe.This.

[MacGuffin]

I think I've only seen Halloween and The Thing and I loved the former and need to see the latter again some time. Is Assault on Precinct 13 the next appropriate Carpenter path to take and if yes, what about after that?

[Qrazy]

I think I've only seen Halloween and The Thing and I loved the former and need to see the latter again some time. Is Assault on Precinct 13 the next appropriate Carpenter path to take and if yes, what about after that?

Escape from New York imo.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I actually really don't like Halloween. Was not effective for me in the least, as it felt almost neutered to me. I'm a much bigger fan of the bizarro psychosis and anarchic glee (i guess) of Texas Chain Saw Massacre, for instance. Assault on Precinct 13, I also only find a pretty solid actioneer, but nothing revelatory.

I dig The Thing though, but I guess I just don't see what makes Carpenter so interesting for some people to go on about (not that I mind lending an ear - Kent's article was a good one, even if I don't totally buy it).

[Boner M]

OK, back to TIFF.... Got a big issue here. I assumed that ordering tickets for packages could be all done online, and wasn't aware of the advance order procedure and whatnot. So my only options are to refund my package or book my sessions when I arrive on the 10th.

So, do tell... which on my schedule (http://match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=284604&postcount=89) is likely to sell out before the 10th? I've sent an email requesting if someone can book the tickets for me, so if anyone here's up for doing that.

[Qrazy]

OK, back to TIFF.... Got a big issue here. I assumed that ordering tickets for packages could be all done online, and wasn't aware of the advance order procedure and whatnot. So my only options are to refund my package or book my sessions when I arrive on the 10th.

So, do tell... which on my schedule (http://match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=284604&postcount=89) is likely to sell out before the 10th? I've sent an email requesting if someone can book the tickets for me, so if anyone here's up for doing that.

I'm fairly sure they do not refund purchases and unfortunately the chance to get in on the advance order procedure has already lapsed...


Advance Order Book: Used by ‘My Choice’ package holders to make their film selections. Available for pick up at Festival Box Office as of August 24. Must be dropped off by August 30 at 1pm to be eligible for the advance order procedure.

Although you can get the advanced order booklet in after this date but the earlier ones are given priority processing. However, don't lose hope because they say only 30% of films sell out and even those that do are potentially still available...


Rush: Sometimes sold out screenings have empty seats because not all ticketholders show up. These tickets are made available to people in the Rush Line at the venue 10 minutes before the screening.

Also...


Off sale: As tickets are sold and returned, screenings may go on- or off sale. At 7pm the night before a screening, we settle the inventory and put any remaining tickets on sale at 7am on the day of the screening at the venue box office only.

So there's still lots of good options for seeing almost everything you'd like to see.

[Qrazy]

I mean I'd be willing to help and get your advanced order book in for you but since the initial date has already lapsed it wouldn't help much. Also you'd have to mail me either the advanced order book or your vouchers and by then it would probably already be September 3rd. In which case I believe "you can still redeem your vouchers, but you'll need to do it after Single Tickets go on sale September 3 at the Festival Box Office."

[Boner M]

Actually they offered me a refund and suggested buying a bunch of single tickets, which sounds pretty aight.

[Qrazy]

Actually they offered me a refund and suggested buying a bunch of single tickets, which sounds pretty aight.

Yeah that sounds like a great deal. Do it up.

[Boner M]

Yeah that sounds like a great deal. Do it up.
Well, it's taken an hour so far and I still can't get to the checkout screen. Is it always this bad?

[Qrazy]

Well, it's taken an hour so far and I still can't get to the checkout screen. Is it always this bad?

Dunno, first time I've been to the festival and I haven't done the single ticket thing.

[Stay Puft]

Well, it's taken an hour so far and I still can't get to the checkout screen. Is it always this bad?

Haha, yes. The website always gets hammered at 7am.

Last year it took about half an hour to get through. This year my friend had everything ready to go in the shopping cart, but it took him over and hour before the website finally told him the shopping cart had been disabled, so once again, it's just a gigantic clusterfuck. I finally got the order through for him around 10am, by which time most of what we wanted was off sale.

[Stay Puft]

The website is perfectly fine, now, of course, though the MaxWeb page is never up to date, so even plenty of films that still appear on sale are actually off sale. This is what always happens. Keep your eyes peeled, because they almost always go back on sale at some point during the next week.

[Boner M]

"Allotment is not large enough at this time. Please try again later or contact the box office."

WHAT DOES THIS EVEN MEAN?!

Anyway, I got 20 of my desired tickets so far, so I'm happy.

[Qrazy]

Boner, now that your schedule is more flexible are you coming to the meet up on the 11th (8:00pm)? What about you Stay Puft?

[Boner M]

Got a screening from 9:15-11:15, but I'll be able to join you guys after. Make sure no one leaves! I love surreal interweb meetups.

[Stay Puft]

Anyway, I got 20 of my desired tickets so far, so I'm happy.

You bastard. I got next to nothing. Everything I want is off sale.


What about you Stay Puft?

Yeah, I'll be there. Apparently, I'm not seeing any films next weekend. :lol:

[Stay Puft]

Oh, but if through some miracle my friends get tickets for the Midnight Madness screening that night, I'll be going to that. Not that Boner M had his heart set on meeting me in person, I'm sure.

[Boner M]

Not that Boner M had his heart set on meeting me in person, I'm sure.
Well, I'm less intimidated to meet you than Qrazy. ;)

[Qrazy]

Well, I'm less intimidated to meet you than Qrazy. ;)

I suppose I do have a towering personality, but I'll rein it in for your sake. :P

[Boner M]

This tweet (http://twitter.com/GuyLodge/status/22977228229) makes me super-pumped for Meek's Cutoff.


MEEK'S CUTOFF (Kelly Reichardt, A) Hey, at least one Terrence Malick film has seen the light of day in 2010. Essential. Distributor, please.

[Boner M]

My new and revised schedule:

Boxing Gym 09/11/2010 03:30pm
(1) AMC 7

Wavelengths 3: RUHR 09/11/2010 09:15pm
(1) Jackman Hall (AGO)

Griff the Invisible 09/12/2010 04:00pm
(1) AMC Yonge Dundas 24 #6

Wavelengths 4: PASTOURELLE 09/12/2010 07:00pm
(1) Jackman Hall (AGO)

Guest 09/12/2010 08:30pm
(1) Varsity 7

Wavelengths 6: COMING... 09/13/2010 09:00pm
(1) Jackman Hall (AGO)

John Carpenter's The Ward 09/13/2010 11:59pm
(1) Ryerson Theatre

Oki's Movie 09/14/2010 07:30pm
(1) Scotiabank 1

Meek's Cutoff 09/14/2010 09:00pm
(1) TIFF Bell Lightbox Cinema 1

Insidious 09/14/2010 11:59pm
(1) Ryerson Theatre


Curling 09/15/2010 02:30pm
(1) AMC 4

The Sleeping Beauty 09/15/2010 05:15pm
(1) AMC Yonge Dundas 24 #2

Mavericks: Kelly Reichardt 09/15/2010 09:00pm
(1) TIFF Bell Lightbox Cinema 3

Promises Written in Water 09/15/2010 10:45pm
(1) Isabel Bader Theatre

The Ditch 09/16/2010 02:15pm
(1) AMC Yonge Dundas 24 #10

Silent Souls 09/16/2010 06:00pm
(1) Varsity 8

The Autobiography of Nicolae.. 09/17/2010 05:00pm
(1) AMC Yonge Dundas 24 #9

Cold Fish 09/17/2010 08:30pm
(1) AMC Yonge Dundas 24 #3

Kaboom 09/18/2010 12:15pm
(1) AMC Yonge Dundas 24 #3

Mavericks: Apichatpong... 09/18/2010 04:00pm
(1) TIFF Bell Lightbox Cinema 3

Leap Year 09/18/2010 08:15pm
(1) Scotiabank 11

Essential Killing 09/19/2010 09:30am
(1) General Admission

Mysteries of Lisbon 09/19/2010 06:30pm
(1) AMC 7

[Stay Puft]

Oki's Movie 09/14/2010 07:30pm
(1) Scotiabank 1

Meek's Cutoff 09/14/2010 09:00pm
(1) TIFF Bell Lightbox Cinema 1

You might have to haul some ass there.

I've also got a ticket for the Mavericks panel with Joe, but no tickets for Uncle Boonmee. If I have to rush both screenings hours in advance, I will.

[Boner M]

You might have to haul some ass there.
Oki's goes for 80 mins... reckon the haul is managable?

[MacGuffin]

Looks like fun, Boner. I'm guessing Film Socialisme sold out or have you already seen it?

[dmk]

My new and revised schedule:

Boxing Gym 09/11/2010 03:30pm
(1) AMC 7

Wavelengths 3: RUHR 09/11/2010 09:15pm
(1) Jackman Hall (AGO)

Griff the Invisible 09/12/2010 04:00pm
(1) AMC Yonge Dundas 24 #6

Wavelengths 4: PASTOURELLE 09/12/2010 07:00pm
(1) Jackman Hall (AGO)

Guest 09/12/2010 08:30pm
(1) Varsity 7

Wavelengths 6: COMING... 09/13/2010 09:00pm
(1) Jackman Hall (AGO)

John Carpenter's The Ward 09/13/2010 11:59pm
(1) Ryerson Theatre

Oki's Movie 09/14/2010 07:30pm
(1) Scotiabank 1

Meek's Cutoff 09/14/2010 09:00pm
(1) TIFF Bell Lightbox Cinema 1

Insidious 09/14/2010 11:59pm
(1) Ryerson Theatre


Curling 09/15/2010 02:30pm
(1) AMC 4

The Sleeping Beauty 09/15/2010 05:15pm
(1) AMC Yonge Dundas 24 #2

Mavericks: Kelly Reichardt 09/15/2010 09:00pm
(1) TIFF Bell Lightbox Cinema 3

Promises Written in Water 09/15/2010 10:45pm
(1) Isabel Bader Theatre

The Ditch 09/16/2010 02:15pm
(1) AMC Yonge Dundas 24 #10

Silent Souls 09/16/2010 06:00pm
(1) Varsity 8

The Autobiography of Nicolae.. 09/17/2010 05:00pm
(1) AMC Yonge Dundas 24 #9

Cold Fish 09/17/2010 08:30pm
(1) AMC Yonge Dundas 24 #3

Kaboom 09/18/2010 12:15pm
(1) AMC Yonge Dundas 24 #3

Mavericks: Apichatpong... 09/18/2010 04:00pm
(1) TIFF Bell Lightbox Cinema 3

Leap Year 09/18/2010 08:15pm
(1) Scotiabank 11

Essential Killing 09/19/2010 09:30am
(1) General Admission

Mysteries of Lisbon 09/19/2010 06:30pm
(1) AMC 7
I look forward to some more reactions to Leap Year. It was... by the largest possible margin.... my favourite film at miff, maybe the 'm' word, yet also inexplicably hated by everyone else.

-Looking at the MIFF audience 'favourites' list, I'm not surprised at all.

[Stay Puft]

Oki's goes for 80 mins... reckon the haul is managable?

It's not too far at all, really. You just have to run a couple blocks down John to get to King. The problem might be that the film will not start right away, as there are introductions and such, which would go for varying lengths depending on if the director himself is in attendance. You'd have to bail on the Q&A if there is one, maybe bail even when the credits start. Rush lines usually start moving in on empty seats around five minutes before the film starts, I think.

Logistically, it's possible, but I'm looking at it and thinking it's not something I'd want to attempt. I try to space screenings out a bit to avoid such situations.

[Boner M]

It's not too far at all, really. You just have to run a couple blocks down John to get to King. The problem might be that the film will not start right away, as there are introductions and such, which would go for varying lengths depending on if the director himself is in attendance. You'd have to bail on the Q&A if there is one, maybe bail even when the credits start. Rush lines usually start moving in on empty seats around five minutes before the film starts, I think.
Well, Kelly Reichardt is a guest for TIFF as well, so I think it's more likely that Meek's would have an intro than Oki's. I'm a fan of Hong but not enough that I'd be miffed to miss a Q&A with him.


I look forward to some more reactions to Leap Year. It was... by the largest possible margin.... my favourite film at miff, maybe the 'm' word, yet also inexplicably hated by everyone else.
Yeah, there were some really hostile twitter responses from what I recall, but of course in some (or many) cases that's a sign that a film's doing it's job right. The synopsis makes it sound a lot like Akerman's Je tu il elle... if you've seen that one, c/d?

[Boner M]

Looks like fun, Boner. I'm guessing Film Socialisme sold out or have you already seen it?
Yeah, saw it already (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=2067&highlight=socialisme).

EDIT: And you replied to me in the thread too, Leonard Shelby! ;)

[dmk]

Yeah, there were some really hostile twitter responses from what I recall, but of course in some (or many) cases that's a sign that a film's doing it's job right. The synopsis makes it sound a lot like Akerman's Je tu il elle... if you've seen that one, c/d?
Oh definitely. The first film I was reminded of during Leap Year was Akerman’s Jeanne Dielman, and that not only came down to the identical structure. I find Jeanne Dielman absolutely devastating, and Leap Year has that similar heartbreaking vulnerability down pat, but without the experimental formalism.

[Stay Puft]

Well, Kelly Reichardt is a guest for TIFF as well, so I think it's more likely that Meek's would have an intro than Oki's. I'm a fan of Hong but not enough that I'd be miffed to miss a Q&A with him.

Well, just keep your eye on the clock. You can manage, but you don't want to be late for a screening.

edit - I just checked, tickets are still on sale. I would have thought people would be buying them up for this film.

[Pop Trash]

This tweet (http://twitter.com/GuyLodge/status/22977228229) makes me super-pumped for Meek's Cutoff.

Daaaamn!!! Considering both Wendy & Lucy and Old Joy both made my top five of their respective years, I think it's fair to say this will make my top ten this year. Mark my words. Then again Winter's Bone was a perfectly fine Reichardt film not directed by Reichardt.

[B-side]

My new and revised schedule:

Mysteries of Lisbon 09/19/2010 06:30pm
(1) AMC 7

You wanna sneak me in?:D

[Spaceman Spiff]

So I walked by the TIFF Lightbox today, and it really is quite something. I wish I was seeing a movie there.

http://www.blogto.com/film/2010/09/a_tour_of_the_tiff_bell_lightb ox/

[MacGuffin]

To no one's surprise, day two is almost over and D'Angelo has already walked out of a few films and hasn't given anything a rating over 65.

[Spaceman Spiff]

lul

[Boner M]

From Sicinski's review of Benning's Ruhr:


a one-hour single shot of a smokestack silhouetted against the sky as the sun goes down.

:eek: I've always wanted to see more Benning and I liked casting a glance well enough, so I'll try and stay for the whole thing. Could be my avant-garde coming-of-age!

[MacGuffin]

Mike D'Angelo has walked out of three movies in a row. At some point you have to ask why bother.

[transmogrifier]

Mike D'Angelo has walked out of three movies in a row. At some point you have to ask why bother.

I'd say it's a pretty reasonable response to:

(a) the sheer number of poor quality films that are produced a year
(b) the sheer number of screenings offered at a film festival and shortage of time
(c) the truthfulness of the statement "Life is short"

I'm not really sure why it annoys you so. Get over it.

[transmogrifier]

In fact, D'Angelo's strategy actually gives first time filmmakers more of a chance than they get from many - at least he goes and gives the film (and director) a chance to win him over. If it doesn't, well, at least he gave it a shot.

I know, if it were me, I wouldn't go near half the films he goes to.

[MacGuffin]

I'd say it's a pretty reasonable response to:

(a) the sheer number of poor quality films that are produced a year
(b) the sheer number of screenings offered at a film festival and shortage of time
(c) the truthfulness of the statement "Life is short"

I'm not really sure why it annoys you so. Get over it.

Oh, I'm sorry for bothering YOU "transmogrifter". It's just that I find it kind of stupid for someone to travel hundreds of miles to see movies that they know they're going to dislike just to get online street cred. Especially when there are a lot of people who would love to go to TIFF. Maybe you should get over yourself.

[Stay Puft]

Okay, been busy, finally checking in...

Day 1
Legend of the Fist: The Return of Chen Zhen (Andrew Lau) **

Day 2
Passion Play (Mitch Glazer) **
Super (James Gunn) ***

Super is the film Kick-Ass should have been.

[transmogrifier]

Oh, I'm sorry for bothering YOU "transmogrifter". It's just that I find it kind of stupid for someone to travel hundreds of miles to see movies that they know they're going to dislike just to get online street cred. Especially when there are a lot of people who would love to go to TIFF. Maybe you should get over yourself.

Where to start?

1. Apology accepted.
2. Which is worse - thinking that you'll dislike a film and not seeing it, and thinking that you'll dislike a film and seeing it anyway in case you're wrong? I'll give you a hint: neither. They are both valid strategies, and I can't imagine in a million years whining about either one.
3. Online street cred? Really? That's the pillar of your argument? "Fuck, man, that D'Angelo, don't mess with that crazy motherfucker! You know, you're there, watching a movie, and he'll fucking out of nowhere man, STAND UP AND WALK OUT! Just like that. There's no reasoning with a motherfucker like that. You just gotta let him have his popcorn and his aisle seat and let him fucking do his thing"
4. Hang on, so he should complete every single movie he enters because somewhere in this world, there will be some other movie geek desperate to clasp eyes and ears on the latest philsophical treatise on the plight of Bolivian pig farmers in 1840? You and my mum would get on; she loves that argument, though it was usually centred around food, and when I was 4 and too young to realise she was talking bollocks.

[MacGuffin]

Man, I really hate people sometimes.

[transmogrifier]

Man, I really hate people sometimes.

You should walk out on them.

[MacGuffin]

You should walk out on them.

I'll save that for you and your 100-point scale elites. ;)

[soitgoes...]

Oh, I'm sorry for bothering YOU "transmogrifter". It's just that I find it kind of stupid for someone to travel hundreds of miles to see movies that they know they're going to dislike just to get online street cred. Especially when there are a lot of people who would love to go to TIFF. Maybe you should get over yourself.The films he is walking out of probably aren't even halfway filled. I think his rule is that he will only walkout on little known filmmakers, like ones from Kazakhstan who probably don't have a following outside of the local Kazakh population in Toronto. In other words, he isn't taking a seat from anyone.

[Stay Puft]

He sees press screenings. So, yeah, he is not taking a seat from anyone.

[MacGuffin]

soitgoes, for me it's more obnoxious when he starts posting hyperbole like this:


Abandoning TIFF for rest of day due to lack of *anything* remotely interesting.

I can get over the fact that's he walking out on film after film after film, but you have wonder why he doesn't just stick through one if he has nothing else to do, or if he really has such a negative disposition, just watch movies that he knows he might like. It doesn't make much sense to me when these critics complain about Toronto, complain about Cannes, complain about Venice, when for me it'd be a dream just to go there. Strikes me as awfully selfish.

Edit: At least we'll always have the humble and trustworthy Michael Sicinski.

[transmogrifier]

I'm confused.

[soitgoes...]

soitgoes, for me it's more obnoxious when he starts posting hyperbole like this:



I can get over the fact that's he walking out on film after film after film, but you have wonder why he doesn't just stick through one if he has nothing else to do, or if he really has such a negative disposition, just watch movies that he knows he likes. It doesn't make much sense to me when these critics complain about Toronto, complain about Cannes, complain about Venice, when for me it'd be a dream just to go there. Strikes me as awfully selfish.

Edit: At least we'll always have the humble and trustworthy Michael Sicinski.Well he did sit through Eastwood's film and hated it. So that broke his string of walkouts. I would give up on the day too if I saw 4 awful films in a row, and there wasn't anything else of interest to see that day. Why torture yourself? I guess as Stay Puft said, he isn't attending public screenings, so who's to know what else is available to him.

If he were to only watch the films he would stand the best chance of liking, then wouldn't that be giving these little known filmmakers even less of a chance? I'm also not sure how being selfish has anything to do with anything. It is his life. You don't have to follow his tweets. He isn't taking a seat from anyone. I doubt Aktan Arym Kubat cares too much that Mike D'Angelo walked out of his film.

[MacGuffin]

Well he did sit through Eastwood's film and hated it. So that broke his string of walkouts. I would give up on the day too if I saw 4 awful films in a row, and there wasn't anything else of interest to see that day. Why torture yourself? I guess as Stay Puft said, he isn't attending public screenings, so who's to know what else is available to him.

Part of my point is that I wouldn't subject myself to four movies if I knew there was a chance of not liking any of them. These days, I'm far more selective about the movies I see and I'm not sure why everyone else wouldn't be if they value their own time.

Good for him for sticking through the Eastwood movie. I wonder if he'll post more than a useless, glib one-sentence review.


If he were to only watch the films he would stand the best chance of liking, then wouldn't that be giving these little known filmmakers even less of a chance? I'm also not sure how being selfish has anything to do with anything. It is his life. You don't have to follow his tweets. He isn't taking a seat from anyone. I doubt Aktan Arym Kubat cares too much that Mike D'Angelo walked out of his film.

I wish I paid more attention to his reasons for wanting to see any given film at the festival, because they were there before the festival. Personally, I'd rather see a bunch of movies by directors that I'm already familiar with and then sprinkle a few movies into my schedule that look intriguing to me. It seems like D'Angelo just went into particular movies because they were easy targets for him. Seeing film school student movie after film school student movie and walking out of them doesn't strike me as productive. He strikes me as more of a cynical moviegoer than one who is the sort to pick out the redeeming qualities of an otherwise poor film.

Using the word "selfish", I'm reminded of his Cannes coverage from a few years back. I think it was the year with Marie Antoinette where he basically dismissed the festival as a whole and bitched about Oh, I can't get any sleep, I can't stay awake through all these movies, blah, blah. It's always seemed to me to be a sort of snobby and selfish (selfish because as I said, there are many moviegoers who can't afford these festivals; Michael Sicinski being one of them) vibe that translated in nearly everything he's written.

As far as me being able to ignore him at any time, I've followed him for a while now just because he's kind of hard to miss on the internet and seems to be one of the only people covering Toronto this year, but yeah, that's sound advice. I probably won't bother checking out which new release he's given a 44 to after this month.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I don't really think whether or not he takes up a seat is the point, nor is MacGuffin saying that he's not allowed to post his own opinions, but that he comes off as bitter when he's throwing around failing grades and making comments of how he's abandoning TIFF for the day becuase there's "nothing interesting".

Seems like a reasonable response to me.

[soitgoes...]

Part of my point is that I wouldn't subject myself to four movies if I knew there was a chance of not liking any of them. These days, I'm far more selective about the movies I see and I'm not sure why everyone else wouldn't be if they value their own time.


I don't really think whether or not he takes up a seat is the point, nor is MacGuffin saying that he's not allowed to post his own opinions, but that he comes off as bitter when he's throwing around failing grades and making comments of how he's abandoning TIFF for the day becuase there's "nothing interesting".

Seems like a reasonable response to me.
Seems like D'Angelo and MacGuffin are in some sort of agreement to me.

[MacGuffin]

Seems like D'Angelo and MacGuffin are in some sort of agreement to me.

The difference between D'Angelo and I is that I wouldn't make a stupid comment about it.

[transmogrifier]

The difference between D'Angelo and I is that I wouldn't make a stupid comment about it.


So in summary, you don't actually dislike anything he actually does regarding the watching or not of the movies, but you dislike the fact that he's open and honest about it?

Weird.

[MacGuffin]

So in summary, you don't actually dislike anything he actually does regarding the watching or not of the movies, but you dislike the fact that he's open and honest about it?

Weird.

Are you Mike D'Angelo or something? Jesus, dude. I really didn't mean to offend anyone, I just don't like how D'Angelo does things. I'd rather read Michael Sicinski who sits through just about everything he sees and offers valuable insight.

[Rowland]

Super is the film Kick-Ass should have been.It sounds a lot like Defendor.

[Chac Mool]

The difference between D'Angelo and I is that I wouldn't make a stupid comment about it.

And yet people read the comments and talk about them... so why not make them?

[Qrazy]

My solution is not to read the work of critics, because I don't care what they think.

[Stay Puft]

So...

Day 3
The Four Times (Michelangelo Frammartino) ***½

Might be overrating it a bit, but it's the first film to leave a real impression. Second part on its own is one of the best things I've seen all year.


It sounds a lot like Defendor.

Haven't really heard about that one, will check it out.

[Qrazy]

The Illusionist was quite good. I preferred it to The Triplets of Belleville, which I also enjoyed. Visually Chomet continues on from where he left off with Triplets. There's plenty of beautiful, detailed imagery ranging from picturesque landscapes to extremely fluidly rendered character motion. The clash of styles between Chomet and Tati generates an interesting tone. The piece feels a bit like a Tati film by way of Terry Gilliam, although much more the former than the latter. The film possesses Tati's lyricism if not quite his energy. There's a manic energy to many of Tati's set pieces that I didn't completely feel here. The film never fully gains momentum. There was also an element of bluntness at times which lacked Tati's delicacy.

That said, by and large Chomet does do the script justice. Chomet and Tati both share a love for primarily visual storytelling. As much as possible they push dialogue to the fringes, and try to communicate as much relevant visual information they can in any given frame. The jokes are usually clever, and the dynamic between Hulot and the girl in the film feels heartfelt, although it could have been slightly more complex.

And of course it was also just a joy to me to see the bumbling Hulot reprise his role just one last time.

Two of the films producers were in attendance and gave a Q and A afterward, but nothing really new or revealing was said. For anyone who didn't know.. the script is purported to be a reflection of Tati's feelings towards his actual illegitimate daughter. I would agree with this interpretation, and it's clear that Chomet does as well.

[Spaceman Spiff]

The piece feels a bit like a Tati film by way of Terry Gilliam, although much more the former than the latter. The film possesses Tati's lyricism if not quite his energy.

And of course it was also just a joy to me to see the bumbling Hulot reprise his role just one last time.

:pritch:

[Boner M]

Ratings so far...

Tamara Drewe (Stephen Frears) **
Wavelengths: Pastourelle
-Nathaniel Dorsky: Compline **** Aubade ***1/2 Pastourelle ***
-T. Marie: Water Lillies ***
Wavelengths: Ruhr (James Benning) ??? - konked out long before the aformentioned shot, drifted in and out of consciousness throughout the film, loved the opener tho.
Griff the Invisible (Leon Ford) **1/2
Boxing Gym (Frederick Wiseman) ***

[Boner M]

I managed to pick out Sicinski in he audience after the Dorsky program, based solely on his Q&A question; man I'm a nerd.

[MacGuffin]

I managed to pick out Sicinski in he audience after the Dorsky program, based solely on his Q&A question; man I'm a nerd.

How's that work? Did he say something that was blatantly Sicinski?

[Boner M]

How's that work? Did he say something that was blatantly Sicinski?
Yeah, really geeky formalist question.

[Stay Puft]

And...

Day 4
The First Grader (Justin Chadwick) *
Vanishing on 7th Street (Brad Anderson) **½

The new Brad Anderson exceeded my admittedly low expectations. Rough opening, but some good intensity and effective visual effects throughout (minus one awful and needless shot). The film's refusal to offer any answers ultimately left me somewhat indifferent, but did make for a compelling mid section. Avoids some of the more obvious cliches of supernatural horror, sticking smartly to a set of operational rules (some unspoken), but still not as consistent as I would haved liked.

[baby doll]

Yeah, really geeky formalist question.Did you get your picture taken with him?

[MacGuffin]

Sicinski hated Cold Fish; he called it "woman-hating". Then again, he also claimed Martyrs advocated child abuse, so who knows.

[Boner M]

Couple of capsule reviews here (http://bit.ly/aOcnw7).

[Rowland]

Then again, he also claimed Martyrs advocated child abuse, so who knows.Yeah, I love the guy, but he was absurdly off-base with that one. Didn't he give it something like a 2, ending his review with the suggestion that all copies of the negative be burned for the betterment of society? Genre fare isn't really his forte anyway.

[MacGuffin]

Yeah, I love the guy, but he was absurdly off-base with that one. Didn't he give it something like a 2, ending his review with the suggestion that all copies of the negative be burned for the betterment of society? Genre fare isn't really his forte anyway.

Yeah, his review was definitely shockingly off-base. But I agree, he's one of the better critics out there.

[Boner M]

Carpenter's The Ward is good! More to come later.

[Bosco B Thug]

Carpenter's The Ward is good! More to come later. Hooray!

[Boner M]

Hooray!
It's basically Shutter Island: Chix Redux and will probably suffer from the comparison for almost everyone else, but the Lewton-isms come to Carpenter so much more naturally. There's also a few too many jump scares that would've sufficed without the piercing cues, but it's all executed with such old-master charm that I didn't care about what would normally be glaring flaws. As such, I'm probably overrating it, but my sigh of elation will remain one of this fest's highlights for me.

[Boner M]

Oh, the new Tscherkassky - Really weird and funny collection of vignettes mostly based around film theory ideas (the gaze, esp); more playful and not as assaultive as the other stuff of his that I've seen, but quite enjoyable all the same.

[Bosco B Thug]

It's basically Shutter Island: Chix Redux and will probably suffer from the comparison for almost everyone else, but the Lewton-isms come to Carpenter so much more naturally. There's also a few too many jump scares that would've sufficed without the piercing cues, but it's all executed with such old-master charm that I didn't care about what would normally be glaring flaws. As such, I'm probably overrating it, but my sigh of elation will remain one of this fest's highlights for me. I'll take it. Carpenter's never belabored anything to near a Shutter Island extent, so I'm sure I'm at least safe from that.

[Rowland]

Excellent.

Hey Bonesy, I could be mistaken but wasn't the score done by someone other than Carpenter? No chugging guitar riffs then? Also, I don't know how familiar you are with the man's total body of work, but if you had to liken it to any style/era/film of his in terms of directorial approach/tone, what would you say?

[Rowland]

Reichardt's latest, Meek's Cutoff, gets an 85 from D'Angelo, likens it to "Gerry on the Praire." Given that Wendy and Lucy was one of my favorites from '08 (it'd be my #1 if released this year), and Gerry would probably rank in my top ten for the decade, I'm pretty ecstatic, though I wonder if it means anything that D'Angelo was indifferent to W&L.

[Qrazy]

Reichardt's latest, Meek's Cutoff, gets an 85 from D'Angelo, likens it to "Gerry on the Praire." Given that Wendy and Lucy was one of my favorites from '08 (it'd be my #1 if released this year), and Gerry would probably rank in my top ten for the decade, I'm pretty ecstatic, though I wonder if it means anything that D'Angelo was indifferent to W&L.

Seeing it in 3 hours, I'll let ya know.

[B-side]

Oh, the new Tscherkassky - Really weird and funny collection of vignettes mostly based around film theory ideas (the gaze, esp); more playful and not as assaultive as the other stuff of his that I've seen, but quite enjoyable all the same.

Interesting. Looking forward to it.

[Rowland]

FFC's Bill Chambers gave The Ward half a star, accuses it of having no style, mood, tension, originality, sensuality, or intelligence, relying solely on jump scares and a beauty pageant of ready-for-DTV hot chicks. Hmm.

[Boner M]

FFC's Bill Chambers gave The Ward half a star, accuses it of having no style, mood, tension, originality, sensuality, or intelligence, relying solely on jump scares and a beauty pageant of ready-for-DTV hot chicks. Hmm.
The jump scares are the film's low-point, but 'no style' is ridiculous. This is Carpenter's most formally impressive film in forever, it's marked by the same elegance, precision and articulation of space as his best films, the generic escape scene is very suspenseful & there's a shot of girls dancing to a radio tune that's one of the most lingering of his filmography. Also the hotties-only cast is a very deliberate choice that reveals its pointedness at the end.

As for your earlier question, I'd say it's most similar to The Fog in tone, and drawing inevitable comparisons to AOP13 for its claustrophobic institution setting.

All things said, the film is already proving divisive (judging from twitter, at least) and I don't think anyone is pegging it as a Thing/Halloween-level masterpiece, just a pleasant late-career surprise at best.

EDIT: And yeah, the score's done by someone else. Not very Carpenter-ish, just a fairly standard sinister-la-la-laing-choir with some Penderecki-isms. It works fine, tho.

[Boner M]

Oh, and Meek's Cutoff lives up to the hype, can't get it outta my head. James Wan's Insidious announces its desired mood in the title, fails at that, delivers a few good jump scares amongst nonstop idiocy. Hong Sang-Soo's Oki's Movie is ass-ugly & self-reflexive in the most thudding ways imaginable; redeemed by structural ingenuity.

[NickGlass]

Hong Sang-Soo's Oki's Movie is ass-ugly & self-reflexive in the most thudding ways imaginable; redeemed by structural ingenuity.

So I should skip it, then, yes?

The only film I have a ticket for is Rabbit Hole (still no distribution despite positive reaction at the premiere? C'est absurd!), so at least I will be seeing one film during my trip. I'm going to try and rush the rest, but I'm not too concerned with seeing too many films. I'll probably go to a midnight madness screening too, and sneak beers in.

[Boner M]

So I should skip it, then, yes?
I'd say it's worth giving it a shot, you're a bigger fan of Hong than I.

[Boner M]

I'll probably go to a midnight madness screening too, and sneak beers in.
I'd be up for that.

[NickGlass]

I'd say it's worth giving it a shot, you're a bigger fan of Hong than I.

After the rather excruciating experience that was Night and Day, I think I'm better off letting this one pass me by for now.

[Stay Puft]

Hello again.

Day 5
Cave of Forgotten Dreams (Werner Herzog) **½

Day 6
Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky) **
Norwegian Wood (Tran Anh Hung) ***½
Insidious (James Wan) **

Day 7
I Wish I Knew (Jia Zhang-Ke) ***½

I have plenty to say about the Herzog, but will save it for when I return from Toronto and have some time. I don't really know what to do with the film, as the screening was every bit as disastrous as the final product.

I'm going to "meh" Black Swan. I don't see the stupidity or the brilliance. As my friend said after the screening, it's more predictable and obvious than anything.

Having not seen I Come With the Rain, I'm still high on Tran Anh Hung. Norwegian Wood is a perfect continuation of the sensibilities evident in The Vertical Ray of the Sun, its warmth and understanding, its gentle observation of the mundane. I have not read any Murakami, I had no idea what to expect here, but the film's sincere and empathetic exploration of the inner space of its characters, and their interpersonal relationships, left me in emotional shambles. Mark Lee continues his reign as cinematographer extraordinaire.

[soitgoes...]

Norwegian Wood (Tran Anh Hung) ***½

Having not seen I Come With the Rain, I'm still high on Tran Anh Hung. Norwegian Wood is a perfect continuation of the sensibilities evident in The Vertical Ray of the Sun, its warmth and understanding, its gentle observation of the mundane. I have not read any Murakami, I had no idea what to expect here, but the film's sincere and empathetic exploration of the inner space of its characters, and their interpersonal relationships, left me in emotional shambles. Mark Lee continues his reign as cinematographer extraordinaire.Well this is encouraging. Though most have been positive on the film, yours seems to be a bit more positive. I hope my sentiments are in line with yours.

Day 7
I Wish I Knew (Jia Zhang-Ke) ***½Well? You liked it a bit more than me it seems.

[Boner M]

Ratings since last batch:

The Ditch (Wang Bing) **
Promises Written in Water (Gallo) ***, maybe ***1/2
Sleeping Beauty (Breillat) **1/2
Curling (Côté) ***1/2
Insidious (Wan) **
Meek's Cutoff (Reichhardt) ***1/2, maybe ****
Oki's Movie (Hong) *1/2
Coming Attraction (Tscherkassky) ***
Photofinish Figures (Paolo Gioli) ***
The Day Was a Scorcher & Jonas Mekas in Kodachrome Days (Ken Jacobs) *** for both

Posted reviews of Insidious and The Ward at my blog (in sig), seem to be in the minority on both from what I've read so far...

[dmk]

Norwegian Wood (Tran Anh Hung) ***½

Promises Written in Water (Gallo) ***, maybe ***1/2
Meek's Cutoff (Reichhardt) ***1/2, maybe ****
:)


Insidious (James Wan) **
Insidious (Wan) **
Oki's Movie (Hong) *1/2
:crazy:

I think I'll enjoy Insidious if it's as shamelessly ridiculous as Dead Silence... But I know nothing of it.

[Boner M]

Hahaha, just got this comment on my Insidious review:

"Fuck you, idiot. Yah, that's as deep as it gets. I know how easy it is to be an amateur film critic. I used to be one. Fun? Yes. Hard? No. I'll always be having be more fun than you,"Ian" (sporting the worst internet hipster cynicism since an Australian tried to fake the AV Club's smarts and accurate pop-cultural commentary... please make him stop)

You know it's me."

Under the name "Girl Domestic", the alias for Corbett Tuck, who the IMDb tells me is Leigh Whannell's girlfriend! This has seriously made my day.

[Qrazy]

Uncle Boonmee - This was the first Apichatpong Weerasethakul film I've seen. At times it was transfixing, at other times baffling. The core of the film works. Which is to say the examination of rural Northern Thailand, as well as Uncle Boonmee's recollections of past lives as he nears death. Joe possesses an interest in fully exploring the mundane (taking care of a crop with pesticides, the art of producing honey, zapping flies, etc). He's also willing to slow down a moment to a meaningful rhythm and just let that moment be (bubbles in the water post catfish coitus, a quiet moment in the life of an ox, the examination of a glittering cave, etc). These are the moments where the film shines.

But I have to say that the film's structure was a bit too meandering for my taste. By the end things have become fairly meta-cinematic and the film moves away from the tale of Boonmee and more towards a reflection on the nature of reincarnation, differentiation and repetition in art (and more specifically Joe's other work). Joe was at the screening and spoke a fair amount about the politics of the film, which was interesting but still didn't fully serve to unify the piece.

And what Qrazy commentary would be complete without a little pet peeve!? To be honest there weren't really even that many past lives in the film. The focus of the film is much more on Boonmee and Jen's experiences, growing old, their regrets, fear in the face of death, etc. And fair enough I suppose, but I could have done with a few more tales of past lives (as a means of exploring Boonmee's current life) and a few less Monkey Spirits and Still Photo montages.

[Qrazy]

Meek's Cutoff - I"ll just throw this out there right off the bat because it's becoming more and more clear to me with each passing film... minimalism just isn't my thing. That said I did like this film, perhaps even more than Old Joy (the only other Reichart I've seen), which I also enjoyed. The primary focus of Meek's Cutoff is to express the experience of a few lost settlers as they head into the heart of the unforgiving west. Bruce Greenwood's performance as Meek really carried the film for me, especially in the first half of the film. Gruff, rough and stuck in his ways, Meek feels like he belongs in this world. The other actors on the other hand took a while to find their roles, although this is partly because Reichart intentionally keeps the audience at a distance from the characters initially.

The film was fairly well shot, although I think it's a memorable experience primarily because of the degree of visual repetition present rather than an abundance of striking images. I don't particularly agree with any comparisons to Malick.

Personally I didn't feel that the film expressed a great deal. It has it's fair share of political and filmic commentary to be sure, but that element of the work felt slight to me. The film works best as a mood piece and as a very focused cross section in the lives of it's characters. The growing sense of desperation which permeates the second half of the film is certainly keenly felt. I agree with Boner that Meek's final monologue was quality, although the ending itself (and these kinds of endings in general) just kind of annoyed me.

I now somewhat regret the fact that I didn't ask Reichart in the Q & A if she had ever played The Oregon Trail and whether or not it served as partial inspiration for the film. :P

Oh and...

The death song is Crow.

[Pop Trash]

Under the name "Girl Domestic", the alias for Corbett Tuck, who the IMDb tells me is Leigh Whannell's girlfriend! This has seriously made my day.

She's hot. You should get her phone number.

[MacGuffin]

Promises Written in Water (Gallo) ***, maybe ***1/2


Yee-haw!



Oki's Movie (Hong) *1/2

What are your thoughts on his other stuff?


Uncle Boonmee - the examination of a glittering cave

Cool! Based on your thoughts, you should probably check out Syndromes and a Century and then Tropical Malady if you still have a Joe jones.


Meek's Cutoff

Personally I didn't feel that the film expressed a great deal. It has it's fair share of political and filmic commentary to be sure, but that element of the work felt slight to me. The film works best as a mood piece and as a very focused cross section in the lives of it's characters. The growing sense of desperation which permeates the second half of the film is certainly keenly felt. I agree with Boner that Meek's final monologue was quality, although the ending itself (and these kinds of endings in general) just kind of annoyed me.

I now somewhat regret the fact that I didn't ask Reichart in the Q & A if she had ever played The Oregon Trail and whether or not it served as partial inspiration for the film. :P


These thoughts worry me slightly, as it sounds more Old Joy and less Wendy & Lucy (the former, I didn't really care for, as the "mood" didn't click with me and it didn't seem to have much else on its mind, as you might say). I'm still pretty interested though, because minimalist Oregon Trail just seems totally awesome to me and Michelle Williams has great onscreen charisma.

I wonder what your thoughts are on the film's possible Oscar success? Too leftfield? Apparently, it's just been picked up by the same indie distributor of Wendy & Lucy. I'm curious to see if there's an Oscar push as speculated elsewhere. It'd be cool to see the Academy branching out even further than No Country for Old Men when it comes to slower paced minimalism.

[B-side]

About 30 seconds of footage from Meek's Cutoff at the end of this:

l9mfmh7wGpc

[Spaceman Spiff]

i just came here to add that Oregon Trail is an amazing game. I love it and miss it so.

[MacGuffin]

i just came here to add that Oregon Trail is an amazing game. I love it and miss it so.

You might be able to play it here (http://woz.commtechlab.msu.edu/courses/447sp04/oregontrail/play.htm) if you have Shockwave (I don't have Shockwave). I'm guessing it's public domain by now.

[Boner M]

What are your thoughts on his other stuff?
I seem to like them when they're funny (ie, Hahaha and Woman on the Beach), and don't really buy that he's doing much interesting on a formal level. Plus I'm all for artists working minute variations on a theme, but 'minute' is starting to be an exaggeration.

[Boner M]

Also, Sicinski was right RE: Cold Fish's misogyny. It's a pretty repellent film and seems to be going for a Fassbinder-esque class critique that's beyond Sono's grasp. Dude should stick to kung-fu upskirt photography cults.

[MacGuffin]

Also, Sicinski was right RE: Cold Fish's misogyny. It's a pretty repellent film and seems to be going for a Fassbinder-esque class critique that's beyond Sono's grasp. Dude should stick to kung-fu upskirt photography cults.

Yeah, I have to be fairly honest here, but I was pretty repelled by Strange Circus' morbid and excessive bluntness; I turned it off about forty-five minutes in or so. There may be a good movie hidden in there, but I didn't really see it necessary to stick around and find it.

As for Hong Sang-soo, check out Turning Gate if you haven't already. It's a brilliantly honest and unique humanist's look at a troubled relationship.

[Derek]

Afterschool (Campos, 2008) ***½

Nice.

[MacGuffin]

Nice.

Hell yeah man. Maybe more thoughts later. But I already told Spinal he'd dig it.

[Boner M]

As for Hong Sang-soo, check out Turning Gate if you haven't already. It's a brilliantly honest and unique humanist's look at a troubled relationship.
Yeah, that's the one I've been wanting to see. I'm actually still on the fence about Hong; I don't like the look of my rating of his latest, though it represents my gut reaction fairly well.

[Qrazy]

Cool! Based on your thoughts, you should probably check out Syndromes and a Century and then Tropical Malady if you still have a Joe jones.

Yeah, definitely planning on it.


These thoughts worry me slightly, as it sounds more Old Joy and less Wendy & Lucy (the former, I didn't really care for, as the "mood" didn't click with me and it didn't seem to have much else on its mind, as you might say). I'm still pretty interested though, because minimalist Oregon Trail just seems totally awesome to me and Michelle Williams has great onscreen charisma.

I think you'll like it.


I wonder what your thoughts are on the film's possible Oscar success? Too leftfield? Apparently, it's just been picked up by the same indie distributor of Wendy & Lucy. I'm curious to see if there's an Oscar push as speculated elsewhere. It'd be cool to see the Academy branching out even further than No Country for Old Men when it comes to slower paced minimalism.

Don't see it happening really.

[Qrazy]

You might be able to play it here (http://woz.commtechlab.msu.edu/courses/447sp04/oregontrail/play.htm) if you have Shockwave (I don't have Shockwave). I'm guessing it's public domain by now.

It's pretty remarkable that the original was made in the 70's.

[dmk]

Has Sicinski ever written anything worth reading? All I get from his reviews is that he's easily offended.


As for Hong Sang-soo, check out Turning Gate if you haven't already. It's a brilliantly honest and unique humanist's look at a troubled relationship.
I second this. Turning Gate, Tale of Cinema and Virgin Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors are essential.

[Derek]

Has Sicinski ever written anything worth reading?

Very often. He's one of the most intelligent and thoughtful critics out there.


I second this. Turning Gate, Tale of Cinema and Virgin Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors are essential.

I'll third this. Those are his three best.

[NickGlass]

Also, Sicinski was right RE: Cold Fish's misogyny. It's a pretty repellent film and seems to be going for a Fassbinder-esque class critique that's beyond Sono's grasp. Dude should stick to kung-fu upskirt photography cults.

Were you in the screening at the AMC last night at 8:30pm? If so, I'm sure you were equally appalled by how the audience also found it suitable to laugh when women were beaten in the face and knocked unconscious.

So, in short, yes, I agree that the film seemed way too vague on whether it was commenting upon the stereotype of submissive Asian women, or insidiously contributing to it. Oof, that film's got problems.

[soitgoes...]

The film must be pretty bad when Sicinski, a guy whose job is watching films, says that he isn't willing to give Sono another chance based on the one film of his he's seen. Granted he went back on that, but saying it in the first place had me scratching my head.

[Yxklyx]

Reichardt's latest, Meek's Cutoff, gets an 85 from D'Angelo, likens it to "Gerry on the Praire." Given that Wendy and Lucy was one of my favorites from '08 (it'd be my #1 if released this year), and Gerry would probably rank in my top ten for the decade, I'm pretty ecstatic, though I wonder if it means anything that D'Angelo was indifferent to W&L.

Yeah, this is the film I'm most looking forward to. I trust D'Angelo's likes more than any other critic. Hopefully Qrazy won't dash my hopes.

[dmk]

The film must be pretty bad when Sicinski, a guy whose job is watching films, says that he isn't willing to give Sono another chance based on the one film of his he's seen. Granted he went back on that, but saying it in the first place had me scratching my head.
Sicinski was so offended by Essential Killing, that he said that he's "reconsidering my admiration for Four Nights of Anna." I don't think this man should be taken seriously, even if half the critics reviewing this film are falling into the same hysteria. It seems a very childish statement.

Here's another one:
“to set this story in the kind of woods in which innumerable Jews were murdered during the Holocaust… is a calculated offense” - Manohla Dargis

[MacGuffin]

Here's another one:
“to set this story in the kind of woods in which innumerable Jews were murdered during the Holocaust… is a calculated offense” - Manohla Dargis

Well, Manohla Dargis has written other remarkably stupid stuff (see her review of Hadzihililovic's Innocence), but like Sicinski she's also written a lot of great stuff. Sicinski generally takes an academic approach to mainstream narrative, hence "The Academic Hack". He's known primarily for his passion for avant-garde cinema (D'Angelo even comparing him to a less pedantic Fred Camper—although, I think Camper and Sicinski are both valuable), so don't be surprised if his mainstream tastes either seem more eclectic or hyperbolic/reactionary or if he seems to be approaching any given movie rather strangely (as I previously mentioned, I find his Martyrs review painfully misjudged). I still find his individual thoughts about movies very intelligent and well-articulated.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, this is the film I'm most looking forward to. I trust D'Angelo's likes more than any other critic. Hopefully Qrazy won't dash my hopes.

Already posted my thoughts.