All caught up

On much needed sleep. Yesterday was insane. So busy and I had cramps most of the night so I was functioning on very little sleep. Some amazing panel discussions yesterday. And since I was deemed capable (seriously, folks, compared to some of the volunteers there, my cat would have been capable) I was asked to be a floor monitor for the whole day! Even though I don't have any personal interest in any aspect of film-making as a career (well, not at this immediate moment anyway), it was fascinating hearing some of the people and the topics discussed. So many similarities across the book publishing and TV / film industry especially with concern to the push and challenge of getting content online and generating revenue from it. Made notes to pass onto Wayne for his project, The Revival, although some of these ideas are too late for this project and frankly he's stressed out enough as it is, so I'll save them for after November. So despite not being able to have one decent cup of tea ALL DAY, I kept myself alert and listened to people's insight and what new filmmakers should do and success stories etc ... The audience was full of a lot of pushy wannabe types who quite obviously thought their film was IT, the thing that EVERYONE needs to see. It was great to see people like Chris Haddock (creator, writer, and executive producer of: Da Vinci’s Inquest, Da Vinci’s City Hall, Intelligence, and The Life) and others bring people down a notch: you will most likely not make a living off of this, you may need to do things like commercials to survive, don't go into a pitch saying you are a "passionate film-maker," not everybody is going to be interested so know you're market, etc ... Someone I know from highschool was there on a panel sharing his success as a film-maker. His approach is very conservative and it's inspiring to see that although we are told to be marketably viable one needs to be up and up on the digital front, Jamie Travis is doing things a little differently. He had one short in VIFF but has (and continues to be) shown at festivals all over. Check him out here and here.

Charlie Kaufman came in and there was a polite mob full of eager budding young film students ready to throw down their ironic-but-not-really page-boy hats and "rumpled" shirts over a puddle if need be. Mr. Kaufman was so wee! I have at least two inches on him! He has the nervous tick thing going, much like Woody Allen and just seems a bundle of distraction, eagerness and anxiety. He was charming and charmed the audience with a story about how he became lost in Stanley Park before heading to the panel and told this relatable story about how eager the doorman of his hotel was to send him on his way around Stanley Park, but when he got outside and realized he had no idea where he was going, that he couldn't go back in to the hotel lest he "disappoint" the doorman. I know we've all been there. I've succumbed to this and have suffered many a poor meal choice, film, day-trip and the odd friendship. So, this is all a metaphor for his "process" of writing. The questions the moderator asked him weren't great and I couldn't tell if Mr. Kaufman was bored or what but he stuck it out and then spent an hour signing things for people who had him pinned between a wall and a door. Poor guy. 

The last panel was on cinematographers and included Frederick Elmes who does all the photography for David Lynch among others. Personally, I think Elmes is fantastic and just love the way he creates mood and tone in Lynch's film. What would Blue Velvet be without that opening scene? Easily my favourite panel of the day.

The rest of the night was spent clearing up, noshing on leftover canapes and drinking wine while re-assembling the place for the movies screening that night. I managed to get out to see two movies after that (I had arrived to work at 7:30 a.m.) with this funny new friend I've got also named Sarah. She's hilarious and basically the only other volunteer deemed as "capable." We saw The Young Victoria and Cooper's Camera

I liked The Young Victoria for the costumes, looking at palace life and the social mores of the day, but altogether the film felt too short. Too much was explained away with text before and after the film about who she was and why she was important. In that sense I felt like I was watching what every Grade 9 student would want to see in order to do some school assignment. I know that they wanted to keep the focus on her when she was young before Albert died and they did a good job showing how the different parties were vying for her, I just felt that they missed out on all the things that was her legacy, namely changing housing conditions for the poor and the working class. I liked all the actors and thought they did a great job, Rupert Friend who plays Prince Albert, especially. I just wanted another ten to twenty minutes of story.

Cooper's Camera was Family Guy-Trailer Park Boys offensive comedy set in the Middle America of 1985 on Christmas. Set decs, hair, make-up and costumes were spot-on. The kids in the film, except for the character of "Wayne" who is the delinquent son just released from prison on a daypass for Christmas, were all over-acting and "Wayne" only escapes this as he has no lines and really no presence in the film. The adults were hilarious and really put themselves into the roles. This is why it reminded me of Trailer Park Boys. It was gritty, hand-held and the actors were not afraid to injure themselves. It was strange watching a film where everyone looks and talks into the camera. Dave Foley has a part and it is not pretty. I cannot believe what they got him to do. Dude's put on weight and not looking good. Maybe a Kid's in the Hall reunion would be the best motivator. As soon as you thought the movie was ending, another crazy horrible thing would happen, so in that case, I guess it really is like the worst family Christmas you can think of. A good end to my long long day.

I stumbled home on my bike and managed to suck back a bowl of ichiban at 1:00 a.m. By the time I arrived home I realized that I had not been by myself for more than two minutes the entire last 18 hours. 

Oh, and Antichrist, I forgot to write about that. I had come home from that movie ranting and raving to Wayne how I thought Lars van Trier obviously hates women. The movie was so graphic and so emasculating (figuratively and literally) and the female character so demonized that it just seemed a frothing raving rant against women. Now, after thinking about it, I realize that although van Trier has obviously issues with women and their control / influence over men, Antichrist, to some, could be seen as a radically feminist film. The female character is so strong, so powerful, so in control that she manages to trick, deceive and betray her husband completely. In this film, women are connected with nature and the powerful unstoppable force that nature is against man. Man is both terrified and in awe of nature. In one scene Dafoe's character repeats that "nature cannot harm us," and his wife, appearing to give in, just nods in agreement. Looking back on that scene, I see that she is agreeing the same way someone would just say "yes, you're right" to end an argument, but thinking in their head, "you are so wrong and you will soon find out." The film is painfully beautifully shot, especially the prologue. The way that light and film speed was used makes this film outstanding, story aside. For me it's hard to judge this film or even the characters in it when I think of the female being representative of Nature. We don't "judge" nature even though in Nature we see the most beautiful and aggressive acts; the miracle of birth, animals preying on other animals, mothers abandoning or eating their young. Death happens in sometimes a very violent and arbitrary way in Nature and we don't question it. When we typically hear of stories of cats abandoning their litter, dogs and lions eating their own young, of us as humans letting animals die on the side of the road, we don't "judge" those involved, we say it is Nature taking her course. We remove ourselves from Nature because we as a human race have bestowed upon ourselves such words as Conscience. Without giving anything away, this is what I think this movie is exploring. It's a hell of a ride and a lot of people left the theatre when I saw it.