A second day in Santa Cruz. Traffic over the "hill" on 17 was kinda lousy, so I didn't make it anywhere near in time for the 3:00 screening of THE MAYOR. But I still saw three more movies.
First up, horsey girls star in ESCARAMUZA: RIDING FROM THE HEART. I knew nothing about this sport before seeing this. In fact, I knew nothing about charreada--traditional Mexican horse competitions. Escaramuza is an all-female subset of the competition, meant to commemorate the women during the Mexican revolution who rode and kicked up dust as decoys to confuse the Federales. The competition seems to be a combination of kicking up lots of dust and elaborate team riding choreography. Honestly, I don't know how you score it, but the performances were pretty beautiful, and the ladies training and performing together were a lot of fun. They form the Californian team Las Azaleas, as they compete--and win--in local, state, and regional competitions until they make their way to the championships in Mexico. I won't spoil how they do in that competition (although it is quite shocking.) I also thought it was interesting watching them balance their home and professional lives with their passion, and how they raise money by doing shows during the intermission at speedways, etc. It's truly a passion sport, nobody (at least in America) gets into it to become rich and famous. But if you're interested, there is a U.S. Federation.
Next up was CLOSURE, a story about closed adoptions (one form of closure,) opening them up, finding your birth parents, and reaching another form of closure (which, not to give anything away, opens up another search.) The subject in this search is Angela, an African-American woman adopted by a loving white couple in Bellingham, WA. Waitaminit! I grew up (well, as much as I can say I'm a grown up) in Bellingham! Holy cow, it's such a trip to see my old city! Wow.... So after tripping on that for a while, I got back to paying attention to the story, and it was pretty incredible, too. Although it's a closed adoption, they did know some things in the records--like a bit of the story of why she was put up for adoption, the father's first name (and a hint that the redacted last name was short.) That was enough to put them on a search and eventually find him, then the mother. Meeting the father was kinda awesome. Not to give anything away but he's something of a local cult celebrity in Chattanooga, TN. And he always thought he was sterile, and he always wanted children. So he's ready to embrace Angela as a daughter whether tests confirm it or not. The relationship with the birth mother is...more complicated. But even that eventually works to a happy conclusions. A sense of...closure, if you will.
And finally, the last film of Saturday was BETTIE PAGE REVEALS ALL. Let me set this up for you. Back in 2004, Indiefest played a movie called BETTIE PAGE: DARK ANGEL. I was excited, Bettie Page was awesome, and this promised to tell her story in her own words. Well, the movie sucked. Sucked, sucked, sucked, sucked, suuuuuuuucked! It was dull, it was poorly acted, and it didn't tell you anything you couldn't learn from a Wikipedia article (as an aside, a year later when THE NOTORIOUS BETTIE PAGE was in theaters, I started seeing the DVD show up in video stores--opportunistic marketing!) Anyway, I kinda digress, but I wanted to set that up by saying Indiefest promised me a great Bettie Page movie 9 years ago, and they finally delivered. Not just a great recap of her career, it featured (audio) interviews from Bettie herself shortly before she passed away, setting everything up. And it has interviews with people who worked with her (including Pauline Klaw, Irving Klaw's sister and business partner,) people inspired by her, and people who were friends with her. It really gives a greater view of her career and life, especially the story of how she disappeared when she "found" religion. It's a bit more complicated--yes, she stopped modeling and joined a church. But she was a believer beforehand, and she never denounced or expressed shame at her former career (although the one incident where she was plied with plum brandy she regretted.) It had as much to do with her getting on in years and wasn't really fit to be a model anymore. But even then...well, I should let Bettie tell you herself, and if you get a chance to see this movie she actually can. One final note, I didn't know that Dave Stevens, who wrote graphic novel of The Rocketeer was a huge Bettie Page fan (and friend) and the female lead was actually supposed to be Bettie Page. They changed her name in the Disney movie, so now I should go back and rewatch that movie--and read the graphic novel.
Total Running Time: 267 minutes
My Total Minutes: 332,423
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Jason goes to Docfest--Day 16
A.k.a. "The day after Closing Night," also a.k.a. "The first night of the bonus Santa Cruz weekend."
Anyway, I drove all the way down to Santa Cruz for just one movie, but it was a great one. THE SUMMIT is a breathtaking and tragic story of an expedition to K2. On a beautiful, clear day in August 2008, 18 climbers reached the summit of K2, arguably the toughest mountain in the world (routinely mentioned as slightly shorter, but way more treacherous than Everest.) Over the next 48 hours, 11 of them would die on the mountain. The adage that the descent is way more dangerous than the climb was never more true. And the thing is, in the thin air of the "Dead Zone" your thinking is confused, and it's difficult to remember and piece together everything that happened. A lot of it remains a mystery even to those who survived (and, of course, those who didn't don't get to tell their story.) The movie does a valiant job of trying to explicate everything that happened, in particular with the Irish climber Ger (this is an Irish production, and is very sympathetic to his family, especially when news reports come out about the "inexperienced" or "unprepared" climbers.) What it mostly boils down to is dumb luck--both for the victims and for the survivors. The one guy who comes off looking really bad is the leader of the Korean expedition. He also happens to be the one guy who refused to be interviewed for the movie. Now this could be damning, you could take it as "he's guilty and that's why he didn't want to be interviewed." Or this could be another example of how those who don't speak (or, like the victims, can't speak) end up with a story that shows them in a bad light. Either way, it's fascinating. And the movie as a whole is fascinating and beautiful, and mixes actual footage/pictures from the climb, reenactments of key incidents, and footage of the 1954 Italian team who first conquered K2 (including an interview with a surviving member of the team, although I believe he passed away a few years ago after the interview.)
Running Time: 98 minutes
My Total Minutes: 332,156
Anyway, I drove all the way down to Santa Cruz for just one movie, but it was a great one. THE SUMMIT is a breathtaking and tragic story of an expedition to K2. On a beautiful, clear day in August 2008, 18 climbers reached the summit of K2, arguably the toughest mountain in the world (routinely mentioned as slightly shorter, but way more treacherous than Everest.) Over the next 48 hours, 11 of them would die on the mountain. The adage that the descent is way more dangerous than the climb was never more true. And the thing is, in the thin air of the "Dead Zone" your thinking is confused, and it's difficult to remember and piece together everything that happened. A lot of it remains a mystery even to those who survived (and, of course, those who didn't don't get to tell their story.) The movie does a valiant job of trying to explicate everything that happened, in particular with the Irish climber Ger (this is an Irish production, and is very sympathetic to his family, especially when news reports come out about the "inexperienced" or "unprepared" climbers.) What it mostly boils down to is dumb luck--both for the victims and for the survivors. The one guy who comes off looking really bad is the leader of the Korean expedition. He also happens to be the one guy who refused to be interviewed for the movie. Now this could be damning, you could take it as "he's guilty and that's why he didn't want to be interviewed." Or this could be another example of how those who don't speak (or, like the victims, can't speak) end up with a story that shows them in a bad light. Either way, it's fascinating. And the movie as a whole is fascinating and beautiful, and mixes actual footage/pictures from the climb, reenactments of key incidents, and footage of the 1954 Italian team who first conquered K2 (including an interview with a surviving member of the team, although I believe he passed away a few years ago after the interview.)
Running Time: 98 minutes
My Total Minutes: 332,156
Jason goes to Docfest--Day 15
A.k.a, "Closing Night." Which is to say, the last night in San Francisco. Still one more weekend in Santa Cruz.
So the closing night film was TERMS AND CONDITIONS MAY APPLY, which I had already seen in Palo Alto. I feel like I shouldn't press my luck by repeating my review here. I pretty much said it all the first time--at least about the subject. I will say the second time watching it I was more impressed with how Cullen Hoback incorporated scenes from other movies in there. And I'll say that the San Francisco audience laughed waaaaaay more than the Palo Alto one. There were chuckles in Palo Alto, there were guffaws in SF.
And it was cool to chat with Cullen before and after the movie. He did offer me more insight into exactly why this movie didn't play in Cinequest. And...it's interesting. But if he and his team has decided not to start a public thing with Cinequest, I won't either. I like Cullen, I like Cinequest, it's a shame they didn't come together on this one, but at least TERMS AND CONDITIONS MAY APPLY should be getting some play in both San Jose (probably at the Camera Cinemas, but nothing is official yet) and in San Francisco (probably at the Roxie, probably in August, but again nothing is official.)
Then we headed right across the street for the after party, where I stayed and got drunk on free Sangria instead of catching a second movie (I was thinking of seeing FUREVER, but it was not to be.) Oh, well. That was fun!
Running Time: 79 minutes
My Total Minutes: 332,058
Jason goes to Docfest--Day 14
It just keeps going, and going, and going...but the end is in sight. In fact, it is now Sunday morning, last day of Docfest in Santa Cruz, and then it'll all be over but the writing--which I'm way behind on. Anyway, here's what I say last Wednesday:
First up was the short, THE DUDE about Jeffrey Dowd, the real-life inspiration behind The Dude in THE BIG LEBOWSKI. I had known a bit about him, his connection to the Coens, etc. One thing I had never thought about was that the Seattle Seven (The Dude and six other guys) were a real group. So now I have a plan for Lebowski Fest SF--get 5 friends together, put on name tags of the real guys (other than Dowd) and see if anyone can recognize us as the "six other guys" in the Seattle Seven.
And that short was the lead-in to the feature, COMPLAINTS CHOIR, directed by Ada Bligaard Søby (who also directed PETEY AND GINGER.) An odd idea by a couple of Finnish artists--to travel the world, gather complaints, and put together local choirs to sing those complaints. A way to learn what the average person is complaining about, and to express it with creativity and humor. We follow them as they put together two complaints choirs--one in Chicago, one in Singapore. Very interesting different dynamics. In America, you're free to complain about anything. And from what I've heard, there's plenty to complain about in Chicago. But this sort of project mostly attracts well-off, white, NPR-listening liberals. And the complaints aren't about crime, drugs, or poverty. Instead they're about parking, how nobody reads, how nobody is doing anything about global warming, etc. In Singapore, the complaints are more along the lines of people falling asleep on the bus and resting on your shoulder. But the interesting dynamic is just getting permission to perform. They have a sort of "Speaker's Corner"--right by the police station. So it's convenient to get a permit to speak there, right? Well, it goes from censoring what you can complain about, to who can complain (only native, ethnic Singaporean, no Malaysian immigrants) to...well they cancel all performances entirely. Oops, sorry for the spoiler. But if you're mad about that, you know how you can complain...?
And then the second show of the night was TRAINS OF THOUGHT. Now I have to admit I had a bit to drink and didn't quite stay 100% awake through the whole movie. But when I was awake, the footage of subways all over the world, the sweeping, rushing P.O.V. shots of the tracks...was just gorgeous. The cinematography was great, the soundtrack was engaging, and when I was awake and paying attention, the commentary from the riders was kinda fascinating. In fact, it's one of those movies that I'm sure is best appreciated fully awake, but actually passing in and out of consciousness while experiencing this is pretty fuckin' cool, too.
Total Running Time: 157 minutes
My Total Minutes: 331,979
First up was the short, THE DUDE about Jeffrey Dowd, the real-life inspiration behind The Dude in THE BIG LEBOWSKI. I had known a bit about him, his connection to the Coens, etc. One thing I had never thought about was that the Seattle Seven (The Dude and six other guys) were a real group. So now I have a plan for Lebowski Fest SF--get 5 friends together, put on name tags of the real guys (other than Dowd) and see if anyone can recognize us as the "six other guys" in the Seattle Seven.
And that short was the lead-in to the feature, COMPLAINTS CHOIR, directed by Ada Bligaard Søby (who also directed PETEY AND GINGER.) An odd idea by a couple of Finnish artists--to travel the world, gather complaints, and put together local choirs to sing those complaints. A way to learn what the average person is complaining about, and to express it with creativity and humor. We follow them as they put together two complaints choirs--one in Chicago, one in Singapore. Very interesting different dynamics. In America, you're free to complain about anything. And from what I've heard, there's plenty to complain about in Chicago. But this sort of project mostly attracts well-off, white, NPR-listening liberals. And the complaints aren't about crime, drugs, or poverty. Instead they're about parking, how nobody reads, how nobody is doing anything about global warming, etc. In Singapore, the complaints are more along the lines of people falling asleep on the bus and resting on your shoulder. But the interesting dynamic is just getting permission to perform. They have a sort of "Speaker's Corner"--right by the police station. So it's convenient to get a permit to speak there, right? Well, it goes from censoring what you can complain about, to who can complain (only native, ethnic Singaporean, no Malaysian immigrants) to...well they cancel all performances entirely. Oops, sorry for the spoiler. But if you're mad about that, you know how you can complain...?
And then the second show of the night was TRAINS OF THOUGHT. Now I have to admit I had a bit to drink and didn't quite stay 100% awake through the whole movie. But when I was awake, the footage of subways all over the world, the sweeping, rushing P.O.V. shots of the tracks...was just gorgeous. The cinematography was great, the soundtrack was engaging, and when I was awake and paying attention, the commentary from the riders was kinda fascinating. In fact, it's one of those movies that I'm sure is best appreciated fully awake, but actually passing in and out of consciousness while experiencing this is pretty fuckin' cool, too.
Total Running Time: 157 minutes
My Total Minutes: 331,979
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Jason goes to Docfest--Day 13
Another night, another 2 movies, as we're getting down to the final days in San Francisco (still one more weekend in Santa Cruz.)
First up was the short-ish film program Featurettes. Films that are too long to pair with a feature, but too short to be their own feature. But sometimes that 20-30 minutes length is just right for telling your story.
C-ROCK: With a feeling of instant nostalgia, a look at a cliff on the Harlem river with a giant C (for Columbia) painted on it. Or rather, a look at the kids who play on that cliff, and jump off it into the water. Jumps range from 25 to 100 feet in height, and are a test of courage for teenage boys (and a source of entertainment for tourists taking a river sightseeing cruise.) And it's a generational link to their fathers, who similarly jumped from C Rock, and who now are the worried adults who are trying to keep their boys safe. (note, although they do talk about girls jumping from the rock, too, they aren't shown in the movie. Instead, they focus a lot on the proper form for cupping your balls so you don't get hurt when you enter the water.)
STRAIGHT WITH YOU: A movie from The Netherlands about young Melvin from Utrecht. He's 11 years old, is a funny, charming kid. He is friends with a girl who has a crush on him and wrote him a love letter. But he's not into girls. In fact, he learned pretty quickly (after seeing the handsome male star of a soap opera) that he's gay. Even in his progressive country, he's afraid to come out at such a young age. He has come out to his parents and to one friend (so far) who keeps his secret. It could easily get into issues of bullying, family (the scene of his father talking about going from a guy who might have made jokes about "dirty faggots" to someone who would pound your face in for making such a joke is pretty funny,) politics, etc. But instead it just shows a very nice, charming, and likable young man--and that's all for the better.
LIVING INSIDE OUT: "Inside" being inside prison. "Out" being their life once they've served their sentence and get out. "Inside out" has the double meaning that they still have "inside" habits on the outside (like a fear of being touched--nobody touches you casually or for no reason in prison) and how that experience turns them inside-out. Shot in San Francisco, through the eyes of three recently released women. It's an exploration of how incarceration changes a person, and a way to look at the city with new eyes. Even places as close as the 16th Street Mission BART, just a block away (although it was a bit puzzling. It showed a working escalator--I don't remember the last time the escalator from the station to the street worked in the 16th St. BART.)
And then the second show of the night, after a little confusion over what theater I was supposed to be in, I went to the Big Roxie to see the feature PUSSY RIOT: A PUNK PRAYER. I remember when they were all over the news (although I confess I first learned about it by seeing this meme.) The film is an engagingly straight-forward account of the legal trouble of Nadia, Masha and Katia--three members of the Russian feminist punk band Pussy Riot. It doesn't really get into the other members, I assume for their protection. It starts with footage of their infamous performance in Church of Christ the Savior in Moscow. It then tracks back to the founding of the group and their earlier performances. They were founded in response to Putin once again being elected President of Russia. I assume a full explication of their politics would be complicated and require an understanding of the political situation in Russia. Either that or "Anti-patriarchy! anti-Putin! Anti-authoritarian!" is all they've got. That's probably why Western media has focused more on the free speech vs. censorship angle instead of what they actually stand for. They do, however, make a compelling case that while they are serious about their issues the performances are meant to be fun and light-hearted pranks, shocking but not really meant to offend anyone. Whether they accomplish this is another question, but the prosecution's description of their colorful ski masks as "acidic colored" is a laughable example of how the powers that be have to twist themselves around and exaggerate in order to make Pussy Riot seem dangerous. The best example of this is actually when a Russian Orthodox priest tries to explain what the "Pussy" in Pussy Riot means (it's a tricky word, because it can mean "cat" or "uterus." ...or it can mean other things, I guess. The best translation is probably "deranged vagina." Which inspires me to create my own band.) Things get a little more serious in the trial, as they realize their wacky hijinx will have real repercussions. Even then, there's some tension between wanting to be heroic, symbolic jester-martyrs and not really wanting to go to jail. In the appeal, one girl (Katia, I believe) is set free with a suspended sentence, while the other two remain in jail. In some ways, this looked like a betrayal, but we're not given access to their private discussions (maybe they all talked and agreed that if any of them can be freed it's a good thing.) In any case, I don't know how I'd react in their shoes--I'd probably rather be free. And Nadia and Masha have now hired Katia's lawyer to defend them, so I suspect as much as they can make some political points by being imprisoned, they'd also rather be free.
And now we're really getting down to the end of Docfest. Two more days in San Francisco, and then a bonus weekend in Santa Cruz and I'll finally be able to get some rest.
Total Running Time: 160 minutes
My Total Minutes: 331,823
First up was the short-ish film program Featurettes. Films that are too long to pair with a feature, but too short to be their own feature. But sometimes that 20-30 minutes length is just right for telling your story.
C-ROCK: With a feeling of instant nostalgia, a look at a cliff on the Harlem river with a giant C (for Columbia) painted on it. Or rather, a look at the kids who play on that cliff, and jump off it into the water. Jumps range from 25 to 100 feet in height, and are a test of courage for teenage boys (and a source of entertainment for tourists taking a river sightseeing cruise.) And it's a generational link to their fathers, who similarly jumped from C Rock, and who now are the worried adults who are trying to keep their boys safe. (note, although they do talk about girls jumping from the rock, too, they aren't shown in the movie. Instead, they focus a lot on the proper form for cupping your balls so you don't get hurt when you enter the water.)
STRAIGHT WITH YOU: A movie from The Netherlands about young Melvin from Utrecht. He's 11 years old, is a funny, charming kid. He is friends with a girl who has a crush on him and wrote him a love letter. But he's not into girls. In fact, he learned pretty quickly (after seeing the handsome male star of a soap opera) that he's gay. Even in his progressive country, he's afraid to come out at such a young age. He has come out to his parents and to one friend (so far) who keeps his secret. It could easily get into issues of bullying, family (the scene of his father talking about going from a guy who might have made jokes about "dirty faggots" to someone who would pound your face in for making such a joke is pretty funny,) politics, etc. But instead it just shows a very nice, charming, and likable young man--and that's all for the better.
LIVING INSIDE OUT: "Inside" being inside prison. "Out" being their life once they've served their sentence and get out. "Inside out" has the double meaning that they still have "inside" habits on the outside (like a fear of being touched--nobody touches you casually or for no reason in prison) and how that experience turns them inside-out. Shot in San Francisco, through the eyes of three recently released women. It's an exploration of how incarceration changes a person, and a way to look at the city with new eyes. Even places as close as the 16th Street Mission BART, just a block away (although it was a bit puzzling. It showed a working escalator--I don't remember the last time the escalator from the station to the street worked in the 16th St. BART.)
And then the second show of the night, after a little confusion over what theater I was supposed to be in, I went to the Big Roxie to see the feature PUSSY RIOT: A PUNK PRAYER. I remember when they were all over the news (although I confess I first learned about it by seeing this meme.) The film is an engagingly straight-forward account of the legal trouble of Nadia, Masha and Katia--three members of the Russian feminist punk band Pussy Riot. It doesn't really get into the other members, I assume for their protection. It starts with footage of their infamous performance in Church of Christ the Savior in Moscow. It then tracks back to the founding of the group and their earlier performances. They were founded in response to Putin once again being elected President of Russia. I assume a full explication of their politics would be complicated and require an understanding of the political situation in Russia. Either that or "Anti-patriarchy! anti-Putin! Anti-authoritarian!" is all they've got. That's probably why Western media has focused more on the free speech vs. censorship angle instead of what they actually stand for. They do, however, make a compelling case that while they are serious about their issues the performances are meant to be fun and light-hearted pranks, shocking but not really meant to offend anyone. Whether they accomplish this is another question, but the prosecution's description of their colorful ski masks as "acidic colored" is a laughable example of how the powers that be have to twist themselves around and exaggerate in order to make Pussy Riot seem dangerous. The best example of this is actually when a Russian Orthodox priest tries to explain what the "Pussy" in Pussy Riot means (it's a tricky word, because it can mean "cat" or "uterus." ...or it can mean other things, I guess. The best translation is probably "deranged vagina." Which inspires me to create my own band.) Things get a little more serious in the trial, as they realize their wacky hijinx will have real repercussions. Even then, there's some tension between wanting to be heroic, symbolic jester-martyrs and not really wanting to go to jail. In the appeal, one girl (Katia, I believe) is set free with a suspended sentence, while the other two remain in jail. In some ways, this looked like a betrayal, but we're not given access to their private discussions (maybe they all talked and agreed that if any of them can be freed it's a good thing.) In any case, I don't know how I'd react in their shoes--I'd probably rather be free. And Nadia and Masha have now hired Katia's lawyer to defend them, so I suspect as much as they can make some political points by being imprisoned, they'd also rather be free.
And now we're really getting down to the end of Docfest. Two more days in San Francisco, and then a bonus weekend in Santa Cruz and I'll finally be able to get some rest.
Total Running Time: 160 minutes
My Total Minutes: 331,823
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Jason goes to Docfest--Day 12
As my regular readers know, I skipped the weekend shows at Docfest to see The Hitchcock Nine, hence no posts on days 9, 10, and 11 of Docfest. But now I'm back for another full week, including a final weekend in Santa Cruz. Until then, it's the typical two-movies-a-night grind.
First up was TWO: THE STORY OF ROMAN AND NYRO. There is a moment I hoped would happen in the movie, and the fact that it didn't happen is a little bit of a wasted opportunity. I wanted to see Nyro learn the violin, and I wanted Roman to become a bit of a pyromaniac (not a dangerous arsonist, just a fascination with well-controlled fires.) And then I wanted a scene where Nyro fiddled with Roman burned.* I guess it could still happen in a sequel.
Instead what I got was a portrait of two charming, articulate, and funny young twin boys. And of course, their family--their famous songwriting dad Desmond Child, their other dad Curtis Shaw, their surrogate mother Angela Whittaker, their godfather Jon Bon Jovi, and their various grandparents. The film delves back into home videos and focuses on three main subjects--Desmond and Curtis' friendship with Angela leading to her agreeing to be their surrogate, the reactions of friends and family to Desmond and Curtis' lifestyle (and how they learned from it. I think it was Desmond's father who was surprised he was fertile at all, thinking that homosexuality meant he had insufficient testosterone to conceive,) and how the boys are doing today and what they think of their family. In all, it's an overwhelming positive story (as I'm sure it has been--and continues to be--an overwhelmingly positive experience in their lives,) only punctuated occasionally by the broader political issues. In fact, the absolute normalcy of this family renders the larger political questions kinda...silly and outdated. This family may have been created through extraordinary means, but their love and devotion is the same as any other family.
Oh yeah, the whole family was there for the Q&A, along with the director and DocFest alumna Heather Winters. The big takeaway--Nyro for President 2036! (He said 2035 in the Q&A, but that's not an election year. But at least he knows that's when he'll be old enough to run.)
Then the second film of the night was GIDEON'S ARMY. Before I get to the movie, I have to share a little anecdote. I have a friend who watches almost as many movies as I do. She was there for that screening, and like me she often will pick her festival schedule to maximize the number of movies she can see, without necessarily reading the descriptions in the guide and knowing what the movies are about. After seeing GIDEON'S ARMY, she confessed to me that she hadn't read the guide and assumed it was going to be about those people who put the Bibles in hotel rooms. It's not.
GIDEON'S ARMY refers to the landmark case of Gideon v. Wainright, which established the right to legal counsel in any criminal case (at the state level, counsel in federal criminal court was already guaranteed by the 6th amendment.) The Army referred to in the title are the thousands of public defenders across the country. Tireless, overworked, underpaid, often maligned...but they're an integral part of the justice system. In fact, they're the ones who put the "justice" in the justice system--without them it's just a punishment system. So we follow three young public defenders fighting for justice, and we get a glimpse into the support group that is the Southern Public Defender Training Center (now known as Gideon’s Promise.) They struggle with huge case loads (nobody was handling fewer than 100 cases at a time,) a system that encourages pleading guilty to something (I knew plea-bargaining was common, I didn't know it was done in as much as 95% of the cases,) and low pay when they have student loans to repay and are seeing their friends make ten times their income working in private firms. It mostly steps around the bigger political issues (e.g., that candidates win elections by being "tough on crime" not "fair on crime" or even "smart on crime"...and I see no way to change that) in favor of worshiping these beleaguered heroes. And that's a good thing. Sometimes you just gotta give respect to the people out there fighting the good fight. I have never (knock on wood) needed a public defender, but I recognize that by making sure everyone gets a fair trial, they are protecting me. By forcing the prosecutors to do their damn job, to prove their damn case, they're making sure some prosecutor won't go after me without some damn good evidence. Which is a good feeling, especially when you're innocent.
Yeah, GIDEON'S ARMY is one of the best of the festival, and it's coming to HBO soon.
Total Running Time: 167 minutes
My Total Minutes: 331,663
*This, of course, is why I should never become a father--I would only want to have children to make puns. Like my secret plan to find, and date a woman named June. Over a few years our attraction grows and we decide to get married. A few more years of wedded bliss and we decide to increase our family. We might have a few sons (whom I'm sure will be great and make us proud) but we really want to have a girl. We finally get a baby daughter with and name her April. We raise her to be a bright, moral, conscientious, politically active young lady. Then wait for a political rally to be in our hometown during February when she is in school. As the date approaches, her mother and I discuss whether she should be allowed to skip school to go to the rally. I voice my opinion firmly and succinctly by stating, "February march? April may, June!" Then I drop the mic and walk out, making it clear I was only in this multiple-decade-long relationship to make that pun.
First up was TWO: THE STORY OF ROMAN AND NYRO. There is a moment I hoped would happen in the movie, and the fact that it didn't happen is a little bit of a wasted opportunity. I wanted to see Nyro learn the violin, and I wanted Roman to become a bit of a pyromaniac (not a dangerous arsonist, just a fascination with well-controlled fires.) And then I wanted a scene where Nyro fiddled with Roman burned.* I guess it could still happen in a sequel.
Instead what I got was a portrait of two charming, articulate, and funny young twin boys. And of course, their family--their famous songwriting dad Desmond Child, their other dad Curtis Shaw, their surrogate mother Angela Whittaker, their godfather Jon Bon Jovi, and their various grandparents. The film delves back into home videos and focuses on three main subjects--Desmond and Curtis' friendship with Angela leading to her agreeing to be their surrogate, the reactions of friends and family to Desmond and Curtis' lifestyle (and how they learned from it. I think it was Desmond's father who was surprised he was fertile at all, thinking that homosexuality meant he had insufficient testosterone to conceive,) and how the boys are doing today and what they think of their family. In all, it's an overwhelming positive story (as I'm sure it has been--and continues to be--an overwhelmingly positive experience in their lives,) only punctuated occasionally by the broader political issues. In fact, the absolute normalcy of this family renders the larger political questions kinda...silly and outdated. This family may have been created through extraordinary means, but their love and devotion is the same as any other family.
Oh yeah, the whole family was there for the Q&A, along with the director and DocFest alumna Heather Winters. The big takeaway--Nyro for President 2036! (He said 2035 in the Q&A, but that's not an election year. But at least he knows that's when he'll be old enough to run.)
Then the second film of the night was GIDEON'S ARMY. Before I get to the movie, I have to share a little anecdote. I have a friend who watches almost as many movies as I do. She was there for that screening, and like me she often will pick her festival schedule to maximize the number of movies she can see, without necessarily reading the descriptions in the guide and knowing what the movies are about. After seeing GIDEON'S ARMY, she confessed to me that she hadn't read the guide and assumed it was going to be about those people who put the Bibles in hotel rooms. It's not.
GIDEON'S ARMY refers to the landmark case of Gideon v. Wainright, which established the right to legal counsel in any criminal case (at the state level, counsel in federal criminal court was already guaranteed by the 6th amendment.) The Army referred to in the title are the thousands of public defenders across the country. Tireless, overworked, underpaid, often maligned...but they're an integral part of the justice system. In fact, they're the ones who put the "justice" in the justice system--without them it's just a punishment system. So we follow three young public defenders fighting for justice, and we get a glimpse into the support group that is the Southern Public Defender Training Center (now known as Gideon’s Promise.) They struggle with huge case loads (nobody was handling fewer than 100 cases at a time,) a system that encourages pleading guilty to something (I knew plea-bargaining was common, I didn't know it was done in as much as 95% of the cases,) and low pay when they have student loans to repay and are seeing their friends make ten times their income working in private firms. It mostly steps around the bigger political issues (e.g., that candidates win elections by being "tough on crime" not "fair on crime" or even "smart on crime"...and I see no way to change that) in favor of worshiping these beleaguered heroes. And that's a good thing. Sometimes you just gotta give respect to the people out there fighting the good fight. I have never (knock on wood) needed a public defender, but I recognize that by making sure everyone gets a fair trial, they are protecting me. By forcing the prosecutors to do their damn job, to prove their damn case, they're making sure some prosecutor won't go after me without some damn good evidence. Which is a good feeling, especially when you're innocent.
Yeah, GIDEON'S ARMY is one of the best of the festival, and it's coming to HBO soon.
Total Running Time: 167 minutes
My Total Minutes: 331,663
*This, of course, is why I should never become a father--I would only want to have children to make puns. Like my secret plan to find, and date a woman named June. Over a few years our attraction grows and we decide to get married. A few more years of wedded bliss and we decide to increase our family. We might have a few sons (whom I'm sure will be great and make us proud) but we really want to have a girl. We finally get a baby daughter with and name her April. We raise her to be a bright, moral, conscientious, politically active young lady. Then wait for a political rally to be in our hometown during February when she is in school. As the date approaches, her mother and I discuss whether she should be allowed to skip school to go to the rally. I voice my opinion firmly and succinctly by stating, "February march? April may, June!" Then I drop the mic and walk out, making it clear I was only in this multiple-decade-long relationship to make that pun.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Jason watches The Hitchcock 9--part 3
And the finale, 4 more Hitchcock silent films on Sunday.
We jumped right in at noon with THE FARMER'S WIFE (1928), probably the funniest romantic comedy of the weekend. A widowed farmer (Jameson Thomas) decides he wants to take on a new wife. So he turns to his faithful and lovely housekeeper (Lillian Hall-Davis) and...has her help him write up a list of all the eligible women in town. And then he goes a' courtin'...with hilarious and disastrous results. One rejects him, one is eager to do all the wifely work--except finding "comfort in a man's arms." One just goes loco with hysterics. And besides, none of them are much to look at. Each time he comes home more an more dejected and dispirited. He's almost ready to abandon the whole venture when he realizes what the audience knew from the beginning--that his perfect wife was right there in front of him the whole time. Kinda silly, kinda sappy, but it actually works. And it features a hilarious supporting role by Gordon Harker as the handyman. Harker also showed up this weekend as the father in CHAMPAGNE and Jack's trainer in THE RING.
The amazing one-man-band Stephen Horne accompanied again, and did a great job.
While the misogyny in THE FARMER'S WIFE was funny and absurd (and there was a lovely paragon of womanly goodness in it all), the next feature, EASY VIRTUE (1928) was downright cruel. Based on a Noel Coward play, Hitchcock and scenario writer Eliot Stannard did a great job of visually telling a dialogue-heavy story. Note, I haven't seen the play, so I don't know the technical differences. I can only imagine how it would be different on stage. I do know they start with the courtroom scene that is actually the climactic finale of the play. In it we learn that Mrs. Filton (Isabel Jeans) is in a divorce case with her husband. Although he's a drunkard who beats her, the verdict is against her because she allegedly had an affair with an artist who was painting her portrait (the way it was portrayed, I believe she didn't actually do anything untoward, it was the artist who propositioned her, but his love letter dooms her.) So she runs off to the French Riviera to start a new life. And is successful...for a while. She meets and marries a handsome young man and maybe her life will turn around. Unfortunately, his parents don't like her, and start doing a little snooping. Like I said, downright cruel. And there were Hitchcockian flairs other than the mistreatment of a woman--most notably the opening scene shot through a monocle.
Judith Rosenberg once again did a fantastic job accompanying. She's already a regular at Niles and at the PFA, and I hope she becomes a regular for the Silent Film Festival, too.
Then for the penultimate show we went back to Hitchcock's very first film (at least, his very first finished feature film), THE PLEASURE GARDEN (1925.) And from the start females--particularly as the agents or victims of cruelty--are central to the story. Also, from the start he's a master of cinema. He had worked pretty much all jobs on a movie set before sitting in the director's chair, and it's clear he not only soaked up all the knowledge about how to make a film, he also had a keen mind to invent new methods. Jill Cheyne (Carmelita Geraghty) is a naive young girl with an invitation to audition for the chorus at the titular nightclub, the Pleasure Garden. But before she even gets into the door, her letter and all her money are snatched by a pickpocket. So she stays with a kind, wiser chorus girl Patsy Brand (Virginia Valli.) The next day Jill pleads her way into an audition, and really wows them, so she's well on her way to being the new star. While she is becoming a star, her fiance Hugh (John Stuart) is sent off to Africa by his company. Hugh's friend Levett (Miles Mander, whom I assume got teased as being the "mild-mannered Miles Mander",) takes a bit of a shine to Patsy, and they get married before he leaves to Africa to join Hugh. While there he, of course, philanders around and has no intention of returning to his wife. Jill, meanwhile, is fooling around with her admirers, especially a prince. Low morals, high decadence, and a bit of the African fever. Hitchcock certainly started with both mastery and flair.
And speaking of mastery and flair, Stephen Horne accompanied again. I'm losing track of how many instruments he plays, but I'm sure at least piano, flute, and accordion were in there.
And finally, we ended the night--and the weekend--with THE LODGER (1927): While this was his third finished feature (after the unfinished NUMBER 13, THE PLEASURE GARDEN, and the lost FEAR O' GOD aka THE MOUNTAIN EAGLE) this is the one that Hitchcock himself described as "the first 'Hitchcock' picture." A lot of the themes he would become famous for are developed here. Sinister men, murder, blonds, red herrings, mistaken suspicion, and of course high suspense. Ivor Novello stars as the titular lodger. We start with reports of a madman murdering blonds in London (the film was based on a book based on the Jack the Ripper murders.) The Avenger--as he calls himself by leaving his triangular note--is known to wear a scarf to cover his face. Soon enough, Ivor Novello shows up wearing a scarf over his face and asking to rent a room right in the middle of where all the murders have been taking place. Immediate suspicion ensues (going against type--another Hitchcock favorite--matinee idol Ivor looks downright creepy as the lodger.) It doesn't help that he hates to even look at portraits of blonds. Or that he's always pacing in his upstairs room (Hitchcock shows some special effects wizardry by having the ceiling dissolve so we can see the soles of his shoes pacing above.) Suspicion only gets worse when he actually becomes kind of friendly with the daughter of the house, Daisy (June Tripp, credited only as "June.") That's especially bad because her boyfriend Joe Chandler (Malcolm Keen from THE MANXMAN) is a detective who is put on the Avenger case. Wonderfully suspenseful, and heavily influenced by German expressionism (particularly the fog and the shadows--like the iconic shadow cross over the lodger's face.)
You know, he had such a long career in talkies that some people forget Hitchcock did silents. And even if you see them, sometimes it's hard to see the hand of Hitchcock in his early works (particularly the romantic comedies.) But this one--even if you took away the credits you could see Hitchcock at work here. Even if you didn't know his career spanned that far back, you could watch THE LODGER and guess that if Hitchcock didn't make it, he was heavily influenced by it. In that way, it's the perfect ending to the Hitchcock 9 weekend. If you're not going to do them chronologically, at least end with the most Hitchcockian one.
And once again, the marvelous Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra provided the perfect accompaniment. Looking forward to seeing them again (and all the other accompanists) at the SF Silent Film Festival in July.
Total Running Time: 355 minutes
My Total Minutes: 331,496
We jumped right in at noon with THE FARMER'S WIFE (1928), probably the funniest romantic comedy of the weekend. A widowed farmer (Jameson Thomas) decides he wants to take on a new wife. So he turns to his faithful and lovely housekeeper (Lillian Hall-Davis) and...has her help him write up a list of all the eligible women in town. And then he goes a' courtin'...with hilarious and disastrous results. One rejects him, one is eager to do all the wifely work--except finding "comfort in a man's arms." One just goes loco with hysterics. And besides, none of them are much to look at. Each time he comes home more an more dejected and dispirited. He's almost ready to abandon the whole venture when he realizes what the audience knew from the beginning--that his perfect wife was right there in front of him the whole time. Kinda silly, kinda sappy, but it actually works. And it features a hilarious supporting role by Gordon Harker as the handyman. Harker also showed up this weekend as the father in CHAMPAGNE and Jack's trainer in THE RING.
The amazing one-man-band Stephen Horne accompanied again, and did a great job.
While the misogyny in THE FARMER'S WIFE was funny and absurd (and there was a lovely paragon of womanly goodness in it all), the next feature, EASY VIRTUE (1928) was downright cruel. Based on a Noel Coward play, Hitchcock and scenario writer Eliot Stannard did a great job of visually telling a dialogue-heavy story. Note, I haven't seen the play, so I don't know the technical differences. I can only imagine how it would be different on stage. I do know they start with the courtroom scene that is actually the climactic finale of the play. In it we learn that Mrs. Filton (Isabel Jeans) is in a divorce case with her husband. Although he's a drunkard who beats her, the verdict is against her because she allegedly had an affair with an artist who was painting her portrait (the way it was portrayed, I believe she didn't actually do anything untoward, it was the artist who propositioned her, but his love letter dooms her.) So she runs off to the French Riviera to start a new life. And is successful...for a while. She meets and marries a handsome young man and maybe her life will turn around. Unfortunately, his parents don't like her, and start doing a little snooping. Like I said, downright cruel. And there were Hitchcockian flairs other than the mistreatment of a woman--most notably the opening scene shot through a monocle.
Judith Rosenberg once again did a fantastic job accompanying. She's already a regular at Niles and at the PFA, and I hope she becomes a regular for the Silent Film Festival, too.
Then for the penultimate show we went back to Hitchcock's very first film (at least, his very first finished feature film), THE PLEASURE GARDEN (1925.) And from the start females--particularly as the agents or victims of cruelty--are central to the story. Also, from the start he's a master of cinema. He had worked pretty much all jobs on a movie set before sitting in the director's chair, and it's clear he not only soaked up all the knowledge about how to make a film, he also had a keen mind to invent new methods. Jill Cheyne (Carmelita Geraghty) is a naive young girl with an invitation to audition for the chorus at the titular nightclub, the Pleasure Garden. But before she even gets into the door, her letter and all her money are snatched by a pickpocket. So she stays with a kind, wiser chorus girl Patsy Brand (Virginia Valli.) The next day Jill pleads her way into an audition, and really wows them, so she's well on her way to being the new star. While she is becoming a star, her fiance Hugh (John Stuart) is sent off to Africa by his company. Hugh's friend Levett (Miles Mander, whom I assume got teased as being the "mild-mannered Miles Mander",) takes a bit of a shine to Patsy, and they get married before he leaves to Africa to join Hugh. While there he, of course, philanders around and has no intention of returning to his wife. Jill, meanwhile, is fooling around with her admirers, especially a prince. Low morals, high decadence, and a bit of the African fever. Hitchcock certainly started with both mastery and flair.
And speaking of mastery and flair, Stephen Horne accompanied again. I'm losing track of how many instruments he plays, but I'm sure at least piano, flute, and accordion were in there.
And finally, we ended the night--and the weekend--with THE LODGER (1927): While this was his third finished feature (after the unfinished NUMBER 13, THE PLEASURE GARDEN, and the lost FEAR O' GOD aka THE MOUNTAIN EAGLE) this is the one that Hitchcock himself described as "the first 'Hitchcock' picture." A lot of the themes he would become famous for are developed here. Sinister men, murder, blonds, red herrings, mistaken suspicion, and of course high suspense. Ivor Novello stars as the titular lodger. We start with reports of a madman murdering blonds in London (the film was based on a book based on the Jack the Ripper murders.) The Avenger--as he calls himself by leaving his triangular note--is known to wear a scarf to cover his face. Soon enough, Ivor Novello shows up wearing a scarf over his face and asking to rent a room right in the middle of where all the murders have been taking place. Immediate suspicion ensues (going against type--another Hitchcock favorite--matinee idol Ivor looks downright creepy as the lodger.) It doesn't help that he hates to even look at portraits of blonds. Or that he's always pacing in his upstairs room (Hitchcock shows some special effects wizardry by having the ceiling dissolve so we can see the soles of his shoes pacing above.) Suspicion only gets worse when he actually becomes kind of friendly with the daughter of the house, Daisy (June Tripp, credited only as "June.") That's especially bad because her boyfriend Joe Chandler (Malcolm Keen from THE MANXMAN) is a detective who is put on the Avenger case. Wonderfully suspenseful, and heavily influenced by German expressionism (particularly the fog and the shadows--like the iconic shadow cross over the lodger's face.)
You know, he had such a long career in talkies that some people forget Hitchcock did silents. And even if you see them, sometimes it's hard to see the hand of Hitchcock in his early works (particularly the romantic comedies.) But this one--even if you took away the credits you could see Hitchcock at work here. Even if you didn't know his career spanned that far back, you could watch THE LODGER and guess that if Hitchcock didn't make it, he was heavily influenced by it. In that way, it's the perfect ending to the Hitchcock 9 weekend. If you're not going to do them chronologically, at least end with the most Hitchcockian one.
And once again, the marvelous Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra provided the perfect accompaniment. Looking forward to seeing them again (and all the other accompanists) at the SF Silent Film Festival in July.
Total Running Time: 355 minutes
My Total Minutes: 331,496
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)