From the monthly archives:

January 2009

This morning’s Academy Award nom­in­a­tions really drove home to me why I write this blog. I am not embar­rassed to tell you that I have yet to see any of the films nom­in­ated for Best Picture. That’s not to say that I won’t see them at some point. But I’ve come to under­stand that I just don’t care about keeping up with the flood of new releases or rushing to see every nom­in­ated film before the awards are announced.

I will dis­cover the great films the way I’ve always dis­covered them, and in the same way that I find great music, or lit­er­ature. Not (neces­sarily) from awards or year-end lists, but in my own time and in my own way. Maybe it will be through a friend’s recom­mend­a­tion, or an inter­esting review, or a con­nec­tion with another film or actor or director.

But I don’t want this blog to try to “cover” the big news the way that so many other blogs do. They do it quicker, and bigger, and better most of the time.

The title “Toronto Screen Shots” may make this site sound like a gen­eric (if local) film blog, but the truth is that it’s a per­sonal site, with my idio­syn­cratic tastes on full display.

Instead of posting the nom­in­a­tions and carping about them, like hun­dreds of other sites will be doing today, I’m simply going to let it pass. If some­thing shiny appears in the corner of my eye, I’ll let you know about it, as always, but it’s become clear to me that I’m just not qual­i­fied to talk about the Oscars right now when I’ve seen so few of the nom­in­ated films.

The media gen­er­ally like to whip up the hype to make everyone think that this year’s nom­inees are among the greatest works of art ever com­mitted to film. When you take the long view back into his­tory, and the broad view around the world, you realize how ridicu­lous that really is.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

National Film Board of Canada

Canada’s world-renowned National Film Board has launched a brand-new screening room sec­tion on their web­site, allowing free access to more than 700 films, clips and trailers. Included at launch are such anim­ated clas­sics as The Cat Came Back and The Sweater, doc­u­mentary Earth to Mouth (early work from Up the Yangtze (review) dir­ector Yung Chang), and Oscar-winning short doc If You Love This Planet. And I found all of those within ten minutes of browsing. This will be a massive resource for film lovers in Canada, though I’m not quite sure whether licensing restric­tions will apply out­side our bor­ders. If you’re viewing this site from out­side Canada, please click over and let me know if you can stream the films.

I’m leaking this news a bit, since the offi­cial press con­fer­ence isn’t until tomorrow, but I’m just so delighted that all the riches of the NFB are now avail­able right from my desktop.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

AJ Schnack announced the nom­inees for the second annual Cinema Eye Honors yes­terday at Sundance. The awards cere­mony will be held in New York City on Sunday March 29, 2009.

Outstanding Achievement in Nonfiction Filmmaking

  • Man on Wire, dir­ected by James Marsh and pro­duced by Simon Chinn (review)
  • My Winnipeg, dir­ected by Guy Maddin and pro­duced by Jody Shapiro and Phyllis Laing
  • The Order of Myths, dir­ected by Margaret Brown and pro­duced by Margaret Brown and Sara Alize Cross
  • Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, dir­ected by Marina Zenovich and pro­duced by Jeffrey Levy-Hinte, Lila Yacoub and Marina Zenovich
  • Waltz with Bashir, dir­ected by Ari Folman and pro­duced by Ari Folman, Serge Lalou, Gerhard Meixner, Yael Nahlieli and Roman Paul (review)

Outstanding Achievement in Direction

Outstanding Achievement in Production

Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography

Outstanding Achievement in Editing

Outstanding Achievement in Graphic Design and Animation

Outstanding Achievement in Music Composition

Outstanding Achievement in International Feature

Outstanding Achievement in Debut Feature

Audience Choice Prize

UPDATE: AJ has posted video of the nom­in­a­tions announce­ment.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Recipes for Disaster (Katastrofin Aineksia)
Editor’s Note: Doc Soup is a monthly doc­u­mentary screening pro­gramme run by the good folks at Hot Docs. It gives audi­ences in Toronto (and now Calgary and Vancouver!) their reg­ular doc fix each year from the fall through to the spring, leading up to the Hot Docs fest­ival itself.

Recipes for Disaster (Katastrofin Aineksia) (Director: John Webster): Anglo-Finn dir­ector John Webster decides to put his family (wife and two young sons) on a strict oil diet for a year and to film the res­ults. Ignore the standard archival footage and ser­ious voi­ceover about the prob­lems of cli­mate change; the most inter­esting thing about this film is def­in­itely the family dynamics. Webster’s wife is a reluctant par­ti­cipant and avoids telling her work col­leagues about the exper­i­ment, not wanting to draw atten­tion to her family. She also calls out Webster for his self-righteousness sev­eral times, at one point sar­castic­ally calling him “a real Jesus.”

And it’s a valid point. After Webster bans all oil products, including plastic, from his family’s life, things become very dif­fi­cult indeed. They try to make their own tooth­paste, with pre­dict­ably dire res­ults. They are forced to buy indus­trial rolls of toilet paper to avoid plastic pack­aging. It’s not enough for Webster, who decides they need to throw out nearly every plastic item in their house. In short, his obses­sion makes him less and less sym­path­etic as the film pro­gresses. In the eyes of his family, espe­cially his wife, he becomes well-nigh insufferable.

Luckily, by the end of the film, he’s recog­nized the ridicu­lous­ness of his beha­viour, while still acknow­ledging the import­ance of his cru­sade. After the year is up, the family con­tinue with a mod­i­fied form of their diet, while still allowing cer­tain items such as tooth­paste. Webster had replaced his car with one that had been mod­i­fied to run on biod­iesel, and he con­tinues to drive that. He buys his elec­tri­city from a green source, and equips his cot­tage with solar panels. All in all, he recog­nizes that he cannot change the world all by him­self. In fact, he can’t even change his family without some com­promise. But the film provides an enter­taining lesson in what can actu­ally be done, and it makes its points with self-deprecating humour.

Normally, Doc Soup screen­ings are accom­panied by a Q&A with the dir­ector present. Since it would go against the director’s prin­ciples to fly from Finland to Toronto just to answer ques­tions, he spoke to the audi­ence via Skype videochat. This worked remark­ably well, and showed that he was still attempting to live up to the lofty goals with which he began, to reduce his family’s carbon footprint.

Official site of the film

7/10(7/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

The Times of Harvey Milk

The Times of Harvey Milk (1984, Director: Rob Epstein): With all the pub­li­city around Milk, Gus Van Sant’s biopic of pion­eering gay polit­ical figure Harvey Milk, I’d been hearing on good authority that Rob Epstein’s Oscar-winning doc­u­mentary, now almost 25 years old, was better in almost every way. So before seeing Sean Penn’s fic­tional por­trayal (which even from the trailer looks powerful), I wanted to learn more about the man and his story.

Milk was the epi­tome of a local politi­cian. He owned a camera store in the San Francisco neigh­bour­hood known as the Castro and became involved in politics because of neigh­bour­hood issues. He ran for the pos­i­tion of city super­visor (coun­cillor) three times unsuc­cess­fully, until a change in the rules allowed each neigh­bour­hood to vote for its own super­visor. Buoyed by the gay vote, he was finally elected in 1977, but only served 11 months before he and San Francisco’s mayor, George Moscone, were shot and killed by one of their col­leagues, Supervisor Dan White, who’d resigned and then been unsuc­cessful in get­ting his job back. Milk is regarded as America’s first openly gay politi­cian, and he knew there was always a risk of assas­sin­a­tion. In fact, Epstein’s film begins with an audio recording Milk made about a year before his death, stating that it should only be played in the case of his death by assassination.

The film itself is a com­bin­a­tion of local news footage and inter­views with his friends. The nar­ra­tion by Harvey Fierstein con­veys the sense of sad­ness and loss that the gay com­munity were still feeling. In fact, the film was made just six years after Milk’s death and the emo­tions of the inter­viewees are still raw, espe­cially when dis­cussing the sub­sequent trial of White, who served only five years for the murders. The gay com­munity was out­raged at the lenient sen­tence, and Epstein covers the “White Night Riots” that fol­lowed the ver­dict. White’s law­yers suc­cess­fully argued that he was suf­fering from depres­sion and didn’t intend to kill Milk and Moscone, des­pite the fact that he con­fronted them in their offices with a gun (and extra ammo) he smuggled into City Hall by climbing in a window to avoid the recently-installed metal detectors. This case was also the origin of the infamous “Twinkie defense”, in which his law­yers argued that he may have been suf­fering from the effects of eating too much junk food, and there­fore had “dimin­ished capa­city” for thought, making him incap­able of pre­med­it­a­tion in the killings.

Although the film does suc­ceed in por­traying Milk as part of a move­ment, rather than just a saintly cru­sader, I would have liked a bit more detail about him and his life. There was very little men­tion of his partner Scott Smith or his life before he came to San Francisco in 1972 at the age of 42. Interviewers hinted at his bursts of temper, but I would have liked to hear more about his volatile per­son­ality. Archived record­ings show that he was a powerful speaker, but his battle to get elected shows that he wasn’t able to win over everyone. He had many polit­ical rival­ries, even with other gay act­iv­ists, and although it would have made the film longer, it would have also made it more nuanced. As well, I found out that Dan White had been a Vietnam vet, a police officer and a fireman before becoming a city super­visor, and I think more explor­a­tion of his back­ground would have made the film stronger, espe­cially in light of the fact that he com­mitted sui­cide in 1985, less than two years after his release.

Overall, Epstein cap­tures the spirit of the times, and the sense that Milk was car­ried along on the chan­ging polit­ical cur­rent. He was not only America’s first openly gay politi­cian, but its first gay martyr. In the light of the pop­ularity and crit­ical acclaim for Van Sant’s film, I would love for Epstein to revisit the sub­ject in another film someday.

Official web site of the film
Telling Pictures, dir­ector Rob Epstein’s pro­duc­tion com­pany
Wikipedia entry on Harvey Milk

8/10(8/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }