Two Trips to the Toronto Film Festival

I managed to see 'So Goes the Nation' and 'When the Levee's Broke' last week. Both films were excellent as well as important social and historical documents.

'So Goes the Nation' examined the 2004 Presidential race between George Bush and John Kerry. The focus of the film is both macro and micro as it deals volunteers on the ground in Ohio, which turned out to be a swing state and an important campaign battleground, as well as interviews with the chief strategists from the Bush and Kerry camps. It is the balanced view that gives this documentary it's interesting point of view. Far from Michael Moore and Al Franken, the film tries very hard to be non partisan and show the election from both the Republican and Democratic side. The election was an easy target for a soap box documentary where you could expose the dirty tactics used againt John Kerry but they don't follow the easy target. Instead, you get a unique view into the strategy of the opponents. This deconstruction of the party battle plans doesn't diminish it's human appeal as a lot of time is spent with the volunteers on the ground and their emotional investments in the outcome of the election. It is a wonderful balance of people with political strategy and free of any apparent partisan manipulation. You can't help but marvel at how an election campaign is constructed and won, or in Kerry's case, lost.

'When the Levee's Broke' is Spike Lee's documentary about Hurricane Katrina and the destruction of New Orleans. In a four hour running time, the film is a comprehensive view of the storm and its social and political aftermath. Some might expect the outspoken Lee to have a hayday with this material which undeniably exposes America's flaws in both race and poverty. Yet Spike Lee, like 'So Goes the Nation', doesn't go the easy direction. Instead he focuses his camera on the people and allows the material speak for itself. 'When the Levee's Broke' becomes an important document of the storm and the views of the people who were abandoned by the beauracracy of the government. The issues of race and poverty are apparent in the film but Lee allows it to come to the surface naturally. His main agenda in this film is to humanize the events, to show you how a great city and a unique people are shamefully swept away in the richest and most powerful country in the world. The film is an angry, funny, sad, painful and spirited look at the United States biggest catastrophe. If you watch the news often, you might find that the film doesn't offer much new information but it doesn't matter - it offers empathy and humanity. It shares the horror of being black and poor in America as well as the horror of Katrina itself. It is a humbling documentary and one well worth seeing.

Lady in the Lake

Robert Montgomery's 1947 film noir 'Lady in the Lake' is an interesting film that uses the technique of POV (point of view) to tell the story. Montgomery directed this film as well as starred in the leading role of Philip Marlowe. Based on the Raymond Chandler novel, Marlowe is hired to find a publishers missing wife.

The film is an interesting but ultimately failed experiment in film technique. Orson Welles proposed to do an adaptation of Joseph Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness' when he was first hired to make a film for RKO. Welles had planned to do the film in the point of view of Marlow (odd that it's the same name) but for a variety of reasons Welles abandoned 'Heart of Darkness' for 'Citizen Kane'. It was a smart move for Welles as the technique limits the filmmaker. For this reason 'Lady in the Lake' lumbers along, chained to the point of view of Marlowe and never giving the audience the opportunity to see how Marlowe reacts or feels. For Montgomery the point of view allowed the audience to participate in the film as if they were Marlowe. This fails as we are not Marlowe and although we are carried along by the dialogue and plot we never really participate in the film. Film is a window into the characters lives and just because we share their visual point of view, it doesn't mean that we share in the characters thoughts or feelings.

I have seen this technique used well in the BBC comedy 'Peep Show'. What separates 'Peep Show' from 'Lady in the Lake' is that 'Peep Show' shifts the POV shots between the characters. This allows you to see a character react visually to the events of the story. It gives you the window into their thoughts and feelings. 'Peep Show' takes it a step further by giving the characters internal monologues where we hear their private thoughts.

'Lady in the Lake' was interesting to watch as it highlights the strengths of traditional and classic film technique. Alfred Hitchcock's Rope was a similar exercise in making a film that seemingly employed no cuts. 'Rope' was made to preserve total continuity and look like it was made in a single take. Hitchock reflected on this experiment with Francois Truffaut:

"When I look back, I realize that it was quite nonsensical because I was breaking with my own theories on the importance of cutting and montage for the visual narration of a story...as an experiment Rope may be forgiven, but it was definitely a mistake when I insisted on applying the same techniques to Under Capricorn."

Montgomery's 'Lady in the Lake' can also be forgiven as an experiment in technique. It is no wonder that we don't use the technique as 'Lady in the Lake' highlighted the flaws in using extensive POV for storytelling. 'Rope' was a more successful experiment and remains an entertaining film today. This is probably due to Hitchock's acknowledgement that although there were no cuts in the film, he staged the film in a way that it was 'precut'. Although the film had no physical cuts, he blocked it in such a way that he was still able to follow simple film grammar of establishing shots, medium shots and close ups. He just used a dynamic and moving camera as opposed to cutting.

Steve Irwin 1962-2006

I was saddened today by the news that Steve Irwin, aka 'The Crocodile Hunter', died unexpectantly. I remember watching the 'Crocodile Hunter' on discovery channel when it came out and couldn't tell initially if Irwin was sincere or a put on. I came to enjoy the program as I realized that this was indeed a sincere, funny, warm, dedicated and nutty guy. His passion for the conservation of dangerous animals was genuine and heartfelt and it shone through in his documentaries.

What happened today seemed to be sadly inevitable being that he spent so much of his time around vicious and powerful adversaries. It reminds me in a small way of Werner Herzog's documentary 'Grizzly Man' about Timothy Treadwell who spent years living amongst Grizzly Bears in Alaska. As much as you can criticize these men, you have to respect their courage and conviction in their need to try to protect these dangerous species.

Steve Irwin was a charismatic, energetic and enthusiastic personality and I can't help but feel the world has lost someone special.

Optimism

Yesterday Sylvia and I went to the theatre to see the wonderfully dysfunctional 'Little Miss Sunshine' and it was one of the best theatre experiences I've had in a long while and one that gave me some optimism for the future of projected films.

I decided not to write a review of the film so I'll just say that it was charming, funny, playful, well cast, well written and well directed. In other words, it's a delightful film.

As the theatre filled up I couldn't help but think of all the recent news of movie studios, fearful of the modern age of digital distribution and shrinking audiences. Despite these fears ticket sales are up seven percent from last year. We got to 'Little Miss Sunshine' about a half an hour early and proceeded to watch the theatre fill up. When the previews started people were struggling to find empty seats (other than those horrible seats at the bottom of the auditorium). Young and old came to see this little film (budget of 8 million according to imdb)and they weren't disappointed. It was one of the rare films I've been to where the audience clapped at the end!

As a casual observer it seems to me that people are just hungry for a great theatre experience. This means first and foremost, a great movie. The film opens with the big Dolby Digital logo, signaling the audio experience of the theatre, then follows with the theatre chains promo of 'Go Big', showing off the size of the screen. I love the 'Go Big' campaign as it is right on the edge of an anti-campaign. They won't finish the statement of 'Go Big or Go Home' - home is the last place they want you to go so they leave it off. You can advertise the theatre experience of big picture and big sound all you want but in the end it means nothing if the next hour and a half is a dud.

What a terrific experience it was with no cell phones ringing and nobody chatting. This is what a good film can do. It brings you into the story and holds your attention and engages you. We just need more of them - you shouldn't need a business degree to figure that out.

Not with a bang but a whimper

In my eternal effort to keep the film industry afloat, I picked up the new dvd of Francis Ford Coppola's 'Apocalypse Now'. I must confess to having bought this film a few times now and will admit that I am a sucker. As for the dvd, it's a gem and worth every penny. For me 'Apocalypse Now' is one of the greatest films ever made. It is rich in both theme and idea and it transcends cinema and comes closer to literature. And if I might confess again, I do think that literature transcends cinema most of the time.

Why then do I love the cinema?

The answer is easy, films like 'Apocalypse Now' are the reason I love the cinema. It represents the potential of what cinema can be. Film is much more of a poetic medium than it is literal. We combine images with sound and, often with a narrative structure, search for feeling and emotion. Film doesn't express complex ideas terribly well but it expresses emotions and feelings better than any other medium. I find that when a film becomes sublime is when it works on both an emotional level and an intellectual level. This is what makes Apocalypse Now so great - it's a film that walks the line between philosophy and emotion.

Having listened to Francis Coppola's commentary track (the reason for buying the umpteenth edition), I must admit that I'm inspired. What was so inspirational is the fact that Coppola says the film was a product of creative process. The film you see isn't the film he intended to make. While going on the journey to make the film he realized that his original ending was not appropriate. The film itself began to suggest it's own structure and style. It's fascinating as a writer when you start to write a story and no matter what you thought it should become, the piece starts to shape itself and dictate to you what direction it should take. This is the creative process. Despite our appetite to finish things, it is the process that makes the journey so interesting.

For Coppola, Apocalypse Now was a harrowing experience but the journey is what seems to have made this film so great. There was no cinematic manipulation or clever turn of story that could have saved him. He had to face the story that he began telling and let it lead him to it's own conclusion.

I truly admire Francis Coppola as a filmmaker and I think that any student of film can learn so much from his films and his DVD commentaries. He doesn't approach films in the same way as many other filmmakers. He doesn't rhyme off influences and superficial elements, he talks about the story and the process of creating the story. For Coppola, it's about the film and the ideas behind the film as opposed to the style. Style, as he says in the 'Apocalypse Now' commentary, was dictated by the story, it was something that came to him as opposed to him imposing it on the film. This is how filmmakers should approach storytelling - let the process dictate to you.

Wikipedia

There is an interesting article on Wikipedia on BBCNews today. If you don't know Wikipedia, it's one of those great things that have come out of the internet and the evolution of information. It's a free encyclopedia that allows users to publish articles and information on any topic.

The BBC article is about the proposed changes to the way that users can publish information on the site. Instead of allowing registered users to edit and publish articles, the site has proposed that each new article and user edits will have to be approved.

Wikipedia is such an interesting site and represents the democratization of information in the modern day. We are not limited to what elite scholars or publishers hold as truth or important. We are allowed to participate in the scholarship that has been inaccessible in the past. It is also what makes blogging a powerful and rich tool as it allows regular people to publish ideas and information, free from editors or publishers with social or political agendas.

Wikipedia doesn't come without it's share of problems and as pointed out in the article, is a target for pranksters and vulnerable to misinformation. The problem with a source like Wikipedia is that 'truth' may be distorted and must be used with a degree of caution. I don't find this to be an argument against this exercise in free information just as I will not watch the nightly news and believe the stories to be 'true'. All information even if it is from the hand of a respected scholar or journalist must be held up and examined. Every good historian knows that you must cross reference every piece of information you present as 'fact'. Wikipedia simply demands the same care and attention and requires it's readers not to take everything at face value. Like all scholarship, it is dynamic, changing all the time as new information comes to light.

I found it a bit amusing how some people reacted to the news that Pluto was being removed from the list of planets and reclassified as a 'dwarf planet'. Some people don't want change and changing the classification of Pluto seemed to challenge what they held as truth all their lives. For me it confirms the idea that the world is dynamic just as we are dynamic. I quote Emerson again:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think today in hard words, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today."

Missing DVD

The move from VHS to DVD has been a true blessing for movie fans. Every movie company has reached into their vaults and have released so many of their treasures. Topping it off is the quality of the prints - the new telecines of old prints have given us a chance to see films in such high quality.

I make a regular trip to amazon and look up some films that are missing. One missing film is Bernardo Bertolucci's spectacular 'The Conformist'. If you don't know it, the story is set in facist Italy where the protagonist, Marcello Clerici takes on an assignment with the secret police to murder a political dissident in France. 'The Confomist' is one of those rare films that blends a unique visual style with a depth of themes and ideas. Storaro's brilliant cinematography uses colour and contrast of shadow and light to lift up and support the stories themes. Clerici is a shell, a man of no courage or conviction, a true conformist. The characterization is quite profound and interesting and Bertolucci explores it through politics and sexuality. Anthony Minghella's 'The Talented Mr. Ripley' is another great film that explores similar themes and ideas. The theme was encapsulated in that great line 'I'd rather be a fake somebody, then a real nobody'.

I read on IMDB that Paramount no longer holds the rights to 'The Conformist' so the release is up in limbo. I believe that Orson Welles 'Chimes at Midnight' is in the same holding pattern. It's a shame as these great films should be able to find a new audience. Maybe the Criterion Collection will be able to broker a deal as they did with Orson Welles 'Mr. Arkadin' and 'F for Fake'. Criterion has done a wonderful job with both of those films.