2016 Ebertfest Day 4

Ah yes, another Paul Cox film at the festival.  The thing about Paul Cox films is that they all seem to revolve around the same themes and ideas, so if you do not care for one of his films, you probably do not like any of them.  I happen to like them, including Force of Destiny, though I wish he could have stuck with filming with "film" rather than switching to digital.

Radical Grace is fine for what it is, though I have a hard time categorizing it as a good documentary.  The segment involving the nun who counsels prisoners probably does not belong in this film, as it had very little to do with the political activism that is the focus of the rest of the movie.  Considering the documentary is only 75 minutes long, I suspect that it had to be padded out to reach this running time, and so they used footage that they had for this other nun, a story that ended prematurely while filming.  The trips to Italy also felt a little phony, like they were arranged merely for the documentary.

Love and Mercy didn't work for me.  It is always a problem when the most interesting part of these music documentaries is the music making process--a small part of the film.  It is still hard to see John Cusack as Brian Wilson.

Blow Out is not as good as I remembered.  An excellent premise is weakened by a cartoonish villain and a ludicrous John Travolta out-of-control driving scene.  And the score is terrible--it even ripped off Blondie's "Call Me," a song that had been released the year before.

2016 Ebertfest Day 3

Disturbing the Peace could have easily been edited into a twenty minute 60 Minutes piece and lost nothing of worth.  Not much to talk about here then.

Many of my favorite memories from the sixteen years I have attended the festival come from the silent movies.  So it is really disappointing when the silent turns out to be a bit of a dud.  That is the case with L'Inhumaine, a movie that is irreparably damaged by a slow moving first chapter.  Tedious and ponderous are the descriptive words that come to mind.  The pacing is much better towards the end of the film, but the story still had problems.  It is a long way from Metropolis.

Eve's Bayou is a good film and a solid debut job of direction by Kasi Lemmons.  The acting is stellar, though I wish there was a little more to the story.  But sorry Roger, ranking this film ahead of Boogie Nights and L.A. Confidential on your 1997 top ten list really reeks of trying to champion a film that others might have overlooked.  Nothing wrong with championing a film, but sometimes the praise is excessive to the point of not being genuine.

2016 Ebertfest Day 2

Roger Ebert had a relatively short list of his favorite films.  2001, La Dolce Vita, Gates of Heaven, Apocalypse Now, The General, and now, The Third Man have played in the festival.  It is actually surprising that so few of these "favorite" films have played in the eighteen years of the festival.  Vertigo was rumored for the festival a few years ago.  I am NOT counting Citizen Kane because it was not properly shown.  It is still bewildering to me that they chose to show it with Ebert's commentary track without having first played the movie with its original audio.  The other "favorite" Ebert movies are Casablanca, Floating Weeds, Notorious, Raging Bull, 28 Up, Aguirre, the Wrath of God, Tokyo Story, and The Tree of Life.  Note: This is a combination of his lists from 1991 and 2012.  Considering how many differences there were in those two lists, Ebert probably had a more "general" list of around 20 or 30 films "floating" around in his head that were pretty much interchangeable depending on his mood and what he had seen most recently.  Oh, and we can probably count Synecdoche, New York as another one of his favorites to play the festival, since he listed it as one of his two possibilities for new films to join that list (he chose The Tree of Life instead).

This 4K restoration of The Third Man looked incredible.  I would never thought it could look so good, especially since I can remember seeing it in public domain quality home video incarnations.  For some reason the dialogue often came across as muffled.  Maybe it was just the accents, or maybe my hearing isn't the greatest.  I'll have to watch this movie again at home, maybe with the subtitles on so that I can finally understand all of the dialogue.

Ok, so I liked Grandma.  It is exactly the type of film that I would expect to play at Ebertfest, and that is not a putdown.  At times the dialogue was too artificial--meaning that two people would never really talk to each other that way, and this is the type of relationship movie that needed to stay away from that.  More naturalism (along with maybe going away from the word for word dialogue in the screenplay) might have helped here.

I was underwhelmed by Northfork.  I didn't have high expectations going in, as Ebert was one of the few critics who liked the film.  It felt like the Polish brothers were going for a Lynchian film without the creative inspiration to pull it off.  What is really frustrating is that Ebert liked this movie so much (perhaps because he liked the whole angel thing), and yet he regularly bashed David Lynch movies.  I was going to link to his review of the brilliant Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, but I couldn't find it, nor could I find a clip from the Siskel and Ebert tv show.  Maybe he never formally reviewed it?  He did post negative comments about it in an article written after viewing it at Canne.

[Edited to move The General to the "shown" list.]

2016 Ebertfest Day 1

After the miserable weather we had earlier in the month, I was kinda dreading this year's festival, since the festival has never been scheduled this early in April.  The festival used to always occur on the last weekend.  Then it was moved up to avoid the marathon.  Considering that the marathon is not until the weekend of the 30th this year, I don't know why the festival was not scheduled on the weekend of the 23rd.  But this might turn out to be the best weather we have ever had for the festival (it ALWAYS rains at least once), so I can hardly complain.

Speaking of complaining, Chaz was doing some complaining about Sunday's News Gazette article.  The best approach would have been to ignore the article, or to vaguely refer to the article while voicing her support for the future of the festival.  There is nothing wrong with the article, which merely conveys some numbers from the festival in the years since Roger Ebert's passing.  This is not a hit piece-it is more of a "draw your own conclusions" piece.  And these numbers are VERY interesting to those people who wonder about the continued viability of the festival.  It is no surprise that the festival might not have the same draw as when Roger Ebert was actively involved with the festival.  The demand for passes and tickets peaked around the last year that Roger was still talking and moderating discussions.  The fact that the demand dropped is more a testament to how important Roger was to the festival than anything else.

And while Chaz would like to stress the cultural and artistic aspects of the festival, there is a commercial component.  The festival needs money to continue.  Sponsors provide some of that money, and obviously those sponsors can derive benefit from having their business advertised in the program or on the screen in between films.  I am also perplexed when she refers to the tickets for the Harold Ramis tribute.  I was under the impression that there were tickets made available to that event.  Perhaps they were "free" tickets, though I don't remember them being advertised that way.

Regardless of the downward trend, this year's festival has had some very solid attendance figures, if my eyes are not deceiving me.  The opening night film, Crimson Peak, sold out of individual tickets, though there were seats left for standby ticket buyers.  Speaking of Crimson Peak, it was a film that I very much wanted to love.  The production design was a sight to behold.  But the unsympathetic (or should I say dimwitted) protagonist kept the story from being as compelling as it should have been.  I do not need realism, but I do need some type of logic, particularly for a character who was presented early on in the film has having a good head on her shoulders.

Ebertfest 2015 Day 5

Low expectations precede every Sunday showing at the festival.  Sunday is usually the day reserved for musical/music related films, and often these have been the weakest of the festival.

Not so this year.  After a decidedly mixed/mediocre run of films at this 2015 festival, Seymour: An Introduction was a delight.  And then having Seymour Bernstein there, and giving a master class on the stage of The Virginia was as good as the movie itself.  And that is coming from someone who knows next to nothing about playing music.

Ebertfest 2015 Day 4

Wild Tales was my favorite film of the festival.  I just wish it had opened the festival rather than showing on the next to last day, as it would have got the festival off to a rousing start.

There is some merit to Ida in its exploration of an overlooked aspect of The Holocaust.  But the rather thin pinnings of the story are dragged out in pretentious fashion, resulting in an occasionally boring, self-important melodrama.

The Motel Life is forgettable, by the numbers indie filmmaking.

99 Homes, set to be released later this year, is heavy handed in its social message.  A conventional drama like this is not what I would expect from festival favorite Ramin Bahrani.  Still, I found it entertaining based on Michael Shannon's performance, which is very close to being over the top at times.  In other words, if you haven't liked Micheal Shannon in the past, this movie is unlikely to change your opinion.

Ebertfest 2015 Day 3

I am not sure how I missed A Bronx Tale up to now.  Maybe because it was not a big studio film, it did not play ad nauseam on the movie channels the way that Goodfellas did.  It also has not been represented well on home video.  Whatever the reason, over half of the audience at the Virginia had never seen it.  I am sure many more people (ok, probably not the older audience at the Virginia) have seen The Simpsons episode "Bart the Murderer," where Bart is employed to make drinks for Fat Tony and his gang.  It is remarkably similar to what happens in A Bronx Tale, but apparently Goodfellas was the main influence on the 1991 episode, as A Bronx Tale was not released until 1993.  It is also very possible that one of the writers had seen the one-man show, which debuted on stage in 1990, the same year that Goodfellas was released.  Whatever the case, A Bronx Tale has been overshadowed by Goodfellas.

The problem with these mob movies is that they have been approached from every angle.  A Bronx Tale takes a more moralistic approach with its emphasis on the choice that C had to make between being like his working class father and being the protege of Sonny.  While it is still a mob movie due to the amount of time spent focusing on the wiseguys, at its heart the movie is about the relationship between C and his father.

My appreciation for the movie only increased thanks to the lively and informative after-film interviews with Chazz Palminteri and producer Jon Kilik.  This terrific discussion also included several questions from Leonard Maltin.

There is quite a striking contrast between A Bronx Tale and Girlhood, the earlier film of the day.  Both feature characters who are 16 years old.  Both characters have to choose between an easier, and probably more lucrative, life of crime or a blue collar, working stiff lifestyle.  But the choices made in Girlhood are really reprehensible.  The girl eschews a future involving physical labor like her mother, instead preferring the life of a thief, bully, and drug courier.  That is pretty much all this movie is about.  The mother is given little screen time, implying that she is not a significant part of Marieme's life, with the brother as a substitute for her father.  Still, it is perplexing to represent the mother as being so absent that she is barely involved in her daughter's life, other than trying to help her obtain a job.  Stylish camerawork does not make up for a nothing screenplay, with an ambiguous ending that seemed more the result of not knowing how to end the story.

The Son of the Sheik was a big disappointment.  I really liked The Eagle, the other Valentino film that was shown at a previous year's festival, so maybe my expectations were too high.  But Sheik really dragged during the middle section, so much so that I even noticed a few walkouts.  It could easily have been fifteen minutes shorter, eliminating much needless "dialogue" and exposition during that bloated middle.

Ebertfest 2015 Day 2

Jason Segal's portrayal of David Foster Wallace in The End of the Tour was key to the success of the film, but he did not pull it off.  I watched the movie never having seen or heard the real David Foster Wallace, and only having just started reading Infinite Jest.  I could not accept Segal's performance, despite wanting to embrace a movie that put forth thoughts and ideas worthy of consideration.  With Jesse Eisenberg in the movie, I was also reminded of The Social Network, which might not have been a perfect impersonation of Mark Zuckerberg, but it did not need to be, because that version of Zuckerberg still came off like a real person.

After the movie I looked at David Foster Wallace's appearance on Charlie Rose.  It did not take long to come to the conclusion that here was a complex and very interesting person whose was communicating advanced ideas but in a sometimes inhibited and certainly awkward fashion.  I believe that "advanced and inhibited" was what Segal was trying to do.  Unfortunately Segal's version of Wallace was a character rather than a person.

The movie took dramatic license with the whole "failed writer" aspect of David Lipsky.  This is a guy who received praise from Raymond Carver at an early age, and while his novel The Art Fair, featured prominently in the movie, might not have been a best seller, it did receive an abundance of praise in literary circles.  Most writers would kill for a start to a career as good as David Lipsky's.

It is not easy to adapt a story that comprises mostly a lot of talky back and forth between two characters over a five day span.  Ponsoldt did a competent job, but the movie still came off as a bit stagey.

Moving Midway was a pleasant diversion, if that description is appropriate for a film that revolves around themes of race.  The older people (including the guy who sold the land) were especially a hoot, making me wish more of their footage was included.

The third film of Roy "King of the Long Take" Andersson's trilogy, A Pigeon...--also the third film of the trilogy to play Ebertfest--was more of the same.  What that means is I kinda loved it, though the sometimes tedious pacing of the film could induce napping for those prone to that.

Ebertfest 2015 Day 1

I do not need a story or even a remote semblance of a plot in a movie. But I do need to be entertained in some way. The visceral and auditory elements were not enough to justify the 70 minutes running time of Goodbye to Language. The 3D did not work for me either. Did Godard use the 3D in service of the filmmaking, or was it just a gimmick? I side with the latter, though I was having problems with the 3D, perhaps because I was sitting off to one side (and yes, I did get the left/right trick Godard played a couple times). The worst thing I can say about Goodbye to Language is that I do not want to waste any more time writing about it. When the most compelling character is a dog...

It was nice that they decided to pay tribute to Harold Ramis, but I would have much preferred that they play one of his movies in its entirety rather than a few short clips from his filmography. This festival is primarily about watching movies, is it not? And they still could have had plenty of time to discuss Harold Ramis' career during the after film discussion.

Ebertfest 2015 Day 0

Having attended the last fourteen Ebertfests, I have a pretty good idea of what the festival should be, and what works. That is why I am approaching the 2015 Ebertfest with some trepidation. While "Overlooked" was the overriding theme for many years, the real strength of the festival was the variety in the films. Sure, the festival has hosted many small, independently made character studies, but there was always a nice mix of films. During the early years Ebert would include a 70mm film, a free kids' film, a film containing a lot of music, a silent film, a documentary, and several festivals even had a horror film. Unfortunately the 70mm film and the free kids' film have been left out of the programming for several years now. They did sneak in a "kids" film last year with the delightful Wajdja, which was shown in the traditional Saturday morning slot.

So what does that leave? Well, we still have the silent film. There will always be a documentary film in the lineup. There is also the usual mix of foreign films-usually one or two European films, one or two African/Middle Eastern films, and one East Asian film. Nothing to complain about there, as the festival has exposed me to a lot of good/great foreign films that otherwise would have remained off of my radar. But this year...

Ebert was always good about selecting some "mainstream" films for the festival, the kind of films that provide a break from the usual (sometimes quite depressing) independent and European fare. This year's festival appears to be lacking in that regard, though maybe a couple of the films are "mainstreamish," without being known by me. I have not seen any of the films yet, not even A Bronx Tale, so I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

The most bizarre pick of this festival, and perhaps of all the festivals, is the selection of Jean-Luc Godard's Goodbye to Language. Why? Well, here is where Roger Ebert's stamp of approval is missed. Up until last year's festival, there was a comfort level with each and every film, because they were picked by Roger Ebert, and the vast majority of the time this meant a very good film was in the offing. That does not mean that everyone expected to love every film. I suspect that in a typical year a couple films were not everyone's cup of tea, but that was to be expected from a diverse slate. But in this case, there is very good reason to believe that Roger Ebert would not have liked Goodbye to Language. Here is what I imagine Ebert would write in reviewing this movie-

This film is an affront. It is incoherent, maddening, deliberately opaque and heedless of the ways in which people watch movies. All of that is part of the Godardian method, I am aware, but I feel a bargain of some sort must be struck. We enter the cinema with open minds and goodwill, expecting Godard to engage us in at least a vaguely penetrable way. But in "Film Socialisme," he expects us to do all the heavy lifting.

Actually, Ebert did write the above quote. It is contained in his one star review of a recent Godard film, 2011's Film Socialisme. It is not a stretch to think that the same words apply to Goodbye to Language, missing only the obligatory 3D dis that Ebert was famous for. Another-

What he lacks is a port of entry for the viewer. Defenses of the film are tortured rhetorical exercises in which critics assemble Godard's materials and try to paraphrase them to make sense. Few ordinary audience members, however experienced, can hope to emerge from this film with a coherent view of what Godard was attempting.

Again, that would seem to be an apt description of Goodbye to Language, right? Instead it is taken from Ebert's 2002 one star review of In Praise of Love. So, if the inevitable conclusion is that Roger Ebert would not have liked Goodbye to Language, then was there no room for it at the festival? I am not saying that. What I am saying is that the festival programmers should keep this in mind in the overall programming of the festival. Ebert wrote positive, if not glowing, reviews for many, many films. Some of those films should be at this festival. Unfortunately it appears that they only included two films that Ebert actually saw and wrote about. And other than the silent film, only one film in the festival is older than 2008. Shortly after Ebert died, the festival programmers alluded to a list of hundreds of films that Ebert had compiled as possible candidates for the festival. Well, what happened to that list?

Gone Girl Done Gone

After one viewing of David Fincher's Gone Girl, I do not have a lot to add to my previous thoughts about the book. The movie hews very close to the book. Plus there is the problem of my mind filling in details from the book as I watched the movie, which makes it more difficult to compare the two without a second viewing. The report about rewriting the ending was probably true, but the substance of that denouement was unchanged from the book. In fact, I might have liked the book better in that regard, though again the movie zipped by so fast that I need to see it again to know what was missing and added. The one part of the book that I had a big problem with, the one involving the white trash at the lodgings, was cleaned up quite a bit by Fincher. Much of the nonsense from the book was removed, including the fishing sojourn. It still is the weakest point in the movie (hanging out at the swimming pool?), but it did not drag down the film. Surprisingly the scene with Nick at the mall was not in the movie. That mall scenes were the creepiest parts of the book, and I kinda thought Fincher would be all over those, but what did appear was so brief that it did not make much of an impact. Is it possible that this scene was filmed but cut? It is possible that we will see a longer cut on the home video release, though Fincher is not known for making available multiple edits. I do feel that some scenes could have been fleshed out, but I can understand why this type of movie cannot sustain a longer running time. The score is fantastic. Traditionalists will hate it like they did the other Reznor/Ross scores.

What If DM Composed a Song for Twin Peaks

With this week's release of the astonishing Blu-ray package of the complete Twin Peaks, a few things came to mind.  Here is one.  Blue Dress is Depeche Mode's Twin Peaks song.  No, Martin Gore did not write it for Twin Peaks, nor was it ever connected to the show.  But it has that....sound that is not far off in synthpop terms, and coincidentally Violator was released one month before the show's debut episode.  Blue Dress also has those "pervy" lyrics that seem to fit in perfectly with Lynch's Northwest Passage.

The Trading Post

I was convinced that little would happen on the trade deadline day, for the reason that nowadays very few teams are willing to give up quality prospects.  I was wrong, partially.

What happened is that many major league players were traded, with not much to note on the minor league side of things.  Sure, several minor league players changed hands.  But the real value resided with the known players already playing in the majors.  To understand what I mean, take a look at this ranking of the prospects traded by Baseball America.  Billy McKinney flew under the radar in that big Cubs-Athletics July 4th trade, and yet he is ranked higher than any other minor leaguer traded yesterday.  Bad news for Tampa, who reportedly could have had Addison Russell for David Price before the Cubs pulled the trigger.  In fact, it is perplexing that Tampa made this deal considering how little they received in return.  Maybe Tampa knows more than the so-called experts, and their trade history would indicate they know what they are doing, but on paper, this trade looks a lot better for Detroit than Tampa.

I am biased about this next team, but I doubt that I was the only person dumbfounded by the two Cardinal trades.  First, the trade violated the "cardinal" rule, followed by Theo Epstein, that you trade away guys who are performing at their peak, and you trade for guys whose recent disappointing performance has diminished their value.  Justin Masterson fits that last description, but he is also coming off an injury and a significant reduction in his velocity.  He is also set to become a free agent after the season.  A lot here not to like, especially for the cost of a decent prospect.

The other Cardinals trade is even worse.  Lackey is in the middle of a good year and will pitch next year for a measly $500,000, but he is a pitcher with a significant injury history and at age 36 does not figure to survive another one.  Worth a prospect?  Yes.  Worth two major league caliber players?  Not so much.  The only thing I can think of is that the Cardinals brass thinks that the league has figured out Allen Craig, with little chance of a return to the type of productivity he showed in previous years.  Also, many people probably do not realize that Craig is 30-which helps to put into perspective all of those Cubs prospects on the verge of hitting the major league club at age 22, instead of their late 20s.  The biggest mistake here?  Not trading Allen Craig during the last off season, when he could have brought much more.

Ebertfest 2014, Day Five

I would feel better about Bayou Maharajah if I had not seen this story before.  Talented jazz musician imbibes and dies young.  The story might be lacking but the music is rewarding.  Watch this documentary for the music.  In the case of this festival, we were rewarded with a bonus performance by the great Henry Butler following the film.  I have not seen many live piano performances, so I was truly wowed by this virtuoso.  A real treat for those who stayed till the end of the festival.

Ebertfest 2014, Day Four

Ebertfest used to have a "free kids matinee" on Saturday mornings.  Why that ended, I do not know.  Maybe the scarcity of quality family films made it difficult to program.  Whatever the case, it kinda returned this year with the delightful Wajdja.  That might be the first time I have ever written (or said) the word "delightful," so do not take this recommendation lightly.  The character Wajdja reminds me a lot of the title character in The Great Brain books, but it is unlikely that the writer/director Haifaa Al Mansour ever read those Utah-based books.

A Simple Life is one of those slice of life movies that stays with you due to the power of the story and the filmmaking.  At the end I felt like I was a better person for having seen it.  What more can I say?

I wish that liked Goodbye Solo more.  Filmmaker Ramin Bahrani has taken the minimalist approach before with a lot of success, but this time I found myself not caring.  Three months later I barely remember it.

I am afraid that if I were to revisit Oliver Stone's oeuvre that his films would not fare very well compared to my current lofty opinion of many of them.  This was my first viewing of Born on the Fourth of July, and I was surprised by how Stone bombards the audience to the point of nausea.  Maybe that should be expected considering his other films, but I was definitely not expecting a film that is not that far off from Natural Born Killers.  TAKE IT DOWN A COUPLE OF NOTCHES, OLIVER.  OR FOUR OR FIVE NOTCHES.

Ebertfest 2014, Day Three

The nice thing about writing about films months after you see them is that you now have some perspective.  Some films are memorable, and some films fall into the abyss of memories.  He Who Gets Slapped falls into the former category.  Not just that, it is a film that I would definitely like to see again.  Lon Chaney shows that he is more than just a man of a thousand faces, and the climax might be one of the greatest every filmed.  That lion scene...

I wish I could be as impressed with Capote.  It is a showcase for Hoffman but otherwise a rather standard film about a story that was anything but standard.  I didn't remember much about it from the first time that I saw it several years ago, and that is not surprising now that I have seen it twice.  Still glad that it showed at the festival due to Hoffman's death and the presence of Bennett Miller, who was a longtime friend of Hoffman.

Do the Right Thing is a much better film than I remember.  I first watched it in film class twenty years ago.  This is one where life experience come in handy to better appreciate what Lee is trying to say.  Despite the music and styles that are right out of the 80s, Lee's film transcends those dated aspects to be a true film for the ages.  By the way, word is that Lee went up to the projection booth to correct the framing.  He also reportedly asked for the film to be louder.  It was plenty loud where I was sitting, though in a theater as large as The Virginia there are bound to be some dead spots.  Interesting that some people complained about how LOUD the sound was.  Yes, it was loud, and it was also loud for Born on the Fourth of July.  I was told that the movies were played at a standard theater level, and they would not raise it (for Lee) or lower it.  Not enough to bother me, but I can understand how some people might be bothered by it.  My advice to those people?  Bring earplugs with you, just in case.  By the way, Lee seemed like a nice, affable guy.  The true test of that is when the dumb questions from the audience begin.

Ebertfest 2014, Day Two

When the festival lineup was announced, I immediately pegged it as being overloaded with heavy, dramatic films.  While I could not be certain since I had only seen two of the films, a quick perusal of the summaries made up my mind.  This was disappointing.  One of the great things about the festival in the past was its diversity, and I am not just talking about the identity of the filmmaker.  Subject matter was all over the place, as Ebert did not shy away from horror, fantasy, sci-fi, comedy, and action films in constructing the lineup.  The festival used to have a Saturday matinee free to kids.  For whatever the reason this came to an end several years ago, which is a shame since often these films were among the festival favorites, and they would also help to lighten the tone of the festival's darker films (one year I counted three films that included cat deaths!)  The festival also used to include a 70mm film which often relied more on spectacle than talky drama, not to mention having a budget that dwarfed the typical indie film on display.  Sure, the festival still has some traditions, such as the silent film accompanied by a live orchestra and a music themed film.  But this year even those two films dwelt with failure and downfall.  It can all be a little too much.  At least no cats died.

But on to the films.  I liked Museum Hours.  The idea is appealing.  But at 107 minutes, the film really tests the patience of the audience when there is scant plot and dialogue, not to mention being dominated by stationary photography.  It could have easily been twenty minutes shorter without lessening the impact.  I talked to others who volunteered that they were falling asleep during the movie, and I suspect this effect was widespread among the older Ebertfest crowd.

Short Term 12 is Brie Larson's movie.  It was a big crowd pleaser, thanks in large part to the syrupy ending that managed to tie up several difficulties in such a tidy manner that made it look like it was written by a studio executive.  I predict big things for Larson, who reminds me a lot of a youngish Jody Foster.  Perhaps not coincidentally Larson is also dabbling in direction.

Now on to the first? film of the festival that Roger Ebert had the opportunity to see.  I was with Young Adult until the ending.  I am not talking about the climax at her ex's party.  There is an extended denouement at the geeky Matt's place that does not ring true.  It is not the resistance to change that I have a problem with, but rather that final encounter with Matt and Matt's sister's flattery.  Both scenes felt forced and arbitrary.  It is no surprise that some people have surmised that those last two scenes were a fiction of Mavis' "young adult" writer's mind.

Patton Oswalt continued where he left off on Day 0 with a loquacious discourse on the movie (and other things) that the moderator foolishly tried to reign in.  Definitely one of my favorite festival guests in the 14 years I have been attending.

Ebertfest 2014, Day One

At one point in Life Itself a point of criticism is introduced, concerning the Siskel & Ebert tv show and its effect on criticism.  The main point is that the show lightly touches on each movie and movies are too complex to be graded on a mere "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" basis.  Ebert defends the format of the show, though he does not deny the gist of the argument.

A similar point could be made about Life Itself.  It merely touches on a few highlights and lowlights of Ebert's life without the kind of in-depth exploration that Ebert's life warranted.  For example, much of Ebert's memoir is devoted to Ebert's life in Champaign and Urbana, but this part of Ebert's life is covered in just a few minutes in the documentary.  This and other areas are barely referred to probably because Steve James could not find the important people from those periods of Ebert's life, as many of them had already passed on.  Ebert's father, who was a great influence on his life, died just after Ebert graduated from high school.  Ebert's mother later became an alcoholic (and somewhat out of control), which would seem to tie in to Ebert's later problems with the bottle.  Neither of these issues was discussed in the documentary.  Other areas that could have and probably should have received more coverage included Ebert's relationship with Russ Meyer, Ebert's love of film festivals and the people who attended them, Ebert's celebrity interviews, and Ebert's love of literature.  Ebert is always associated with movies, but he was quoted as saying that he preferred reading to the visual arts.  Interesting.  But evidently not interesting enough to Steve James, who does not include this in the documentary.

James also relies too much on Ebert's inner circle.  Sure, they are great, but Herzog, Scorsese, Morris, and Bahrani are a little too close to Ebert, not to mention that they do not have much to offer about Ebert's early years.  The views of Corliss and Rosenbaum are offered as a counterpoint, but I wanted more.  Ebert's review of Blue Velvet is briefly mentioned, but missing is a more comprehensive look at Ebert's writing.  For example, concerning Blue Velvet and others, it is clear that Ebert had hangups that he could not look past.  In this case it involved the poor treatment of women.  Never mind that the filmmaker did not necessarily condone this behavior.  Other examples of this included Ebert's reviews of Straw Dogs and A Clockwork Orange.  An even more curious example is Ebert's review of  Fast Times at Ridgemont High, a movie that was even directed by a woman.  It is not just that Ebert did not like the movie-he was offended by it.  His review is so vitriolic that one wonders if he was in a really, really bad mood when he saw the movie.  Could this be the same guy who wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls?

Another issue that never comes through in the film is Ebert's views on religion.  Ebert was not a religious person in the doctrinal Catholic sense, but he was certainly shaped by religion.  It is another theme that is ignored.

James focused in on certain parts of Ebert's life, and the result is a quality work.  Only so much can be covered in two hours, and James was limited in who he could interview because so many of Ebert's associates are no longer around.  Life Itself has a lot of heart, and it is never dull.  Those with only a passing familiarity with Ebert will probably find it entertaining and emotionally captivating.  But Ebert lived a rich and interesting life, and I wish more of this was in the film.

Ebertfest 2014, Day Zero

Bringing back memories of sleeping through political science and classic civ (when I bothered to attend), I returned to Foellinger Auditorium on Tuesday to attend the showing of the original version of The Taking of Pelham, One, Two, Three.  Not a huge crowd, and technical aspects were lacking, but those that did attend were treated to the musings of the often hilarious Patton Oswalt, who introduced the film and took questions afterwards.  I am sure that even those who were not thrilled by the movie were entertained by Oswalt's energetic and insightful banter which at times verged into standup territory.  And Pelham is one of those movies worthy of such a discussion.

A few thoughts about the movie (spoilers)-
1. Why didn't the city just shut off power to the runaway train?
2. Did we really need to see Robert Shaw fry?  And this really came out of nowhere-it would have been nice if the movie had explained motivations a little bit better.
3. This is a really lamebrain scheme.  The police know exactly where the train stopped.  Why wouldn't they station police in that area to make sure no one escaped.  Even if the police believed one or more of the criminals were still on the train, that doesn't account for any criminals that might have jumped off the train and fled on foot-with the loot.
4. The score was awful, and I do not really buy the explanation that it was merely reflecting the ugliness of the city.
5. The direction was almost as bad, in terms of awkward editing, clumsy camerawork, and hammy acting from bit players.  Maybe that is what separates this movie from Diehard.

Play It Again

Today's Cubs-Phillies game featured an almost replay.  Darwin Barney was hit by a pitch.  The umpire ruled that it was a foul ball.  Renteria discussed it with the umpires for about four minutes in old school style, but no replay was forthcoming.  I do not know why the replay was not allowed.  The broadcasters were equally clueless, and as far as I know no definitive explanation was ever provided.

One possible explanation is that even if it was not ruled a foul ball, the umpire would have ruled Barney swung at the pitch, thus resulting in a strike.  Therefore if Renteria challenged it, the replay would have shown that the ball hit barney without striking the bat.  This would have been BAD for the Cubs, because the umpire would then call it a strike instead of a foul ball, and Barney would have struck out.  Taking this idea one step further, Sandberg should have challenged the call because Barney would have been called out.  Instead the call stood and Barney singled on the next pitch.