Hi, Greg here as the sole remaining link to filmbrats at this years Ebertfest.
Friday peaked early with Haskell Wexler's film MEDIUM COOL. I had never seen
it before nor had I any idea what it was about, but after viewing it I could
not stop stop thinking about it for the rest of the day. I think Ebert likes
to weave mini-themes through his festival on occasion, and both THE GREY
AUTOMOBILE on Thursday and MEDIUM COOL Friday mixed documentary footage with
actors and fictional stories in a way that I do not believe I had encountered
before. Equally as great as the film was Wexler's on-stage conversation with
Roger, which ended up being more like a half hour monologue of thought's
running through the director's head. He made a lot of interesting connections
between the 1968 political climate of his film and the situation we find
ourselves in today. He also emphasized the fact that any film/television
product we consume is a fiction, packaged to send a certain political message,
no matter how real the images are that are being packaged. He built on that
point to criticize the way that films and the media like to create
well-defined good guys and bad guys and allow the good guy to get away with
all kinds of bad deeds because he has received this fantastic sanction, using
Dubya and Saddam as contemporary examples of this phenomenon.
This idea of unrealisticly clear-cut distinctions between good and bad arose
at the panel discussion that morning on women in the film industry. Having had
the opportunity to see several of these discussions over the past few days, I
have realized how artificial these supposedly spontaneous conversations are. I
have seen Sprecher sisters, Jill and Karen, co-writers (and Jill also as
director) of THIRTEEN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ONE THING, showing Saturday night at
the festival, talk in two different situations about their experiences making
films as women. And each time they repeated the same stories, even
interjecting comments in the same places. What felt so specific to the moment
and real the first time was completely flipped the next day. This does make me
upset with them or think they are any less great, because hearing all these
discussion has also made me aware of how many inane questions these people are
forced to acknowledge and to which they must formulate legitimate answers.
Still I think that if I tape recorded every one of these conversations over
the course of the weekend, I could probably edit together several of my own
personal panel discussions made up of the personnel of my choosing and about
whatever topics I liked, and they would probably be pretty close to what the
reality would be. So if I had any idea reinforced today, it is that I should
be skeptical of all media presented to me, whether it be on film or video or
just a group of authorities on a subject communicating in front of an
audience.
As for the rest of the films, I felt that WHAT'S COOKING? was ok, but while I
was entertained and interested in it throughout, I did not ever understand
what made it special enough to be in this festival. I imaging it was also hurt
by having the unenviable position of following not only MEDIUM COOL but also
Haskell Wexler himself. Unfortunately, the director of WHAT'S COOKING?,
Gurinder Chadna, could not make it to the festival, and while Ebert's bringing
his wife Chaz on stage to discuss the film with him was a nice gesture, I do
not feel that the audience gained a whole from the conversation.
I unfortunately had to miss THE BLACK PIRATE with the accompaniment by the
Alloy Orchestra, but those I talked to said that the the trio's performance
with the film was great as always as was the movie itself. If you ever
discover that this group is performing anywhere near you, I would certainly
recommend venturing to check them out. They have made some DVD’s of their
performances, and while those are cool, they obviously cannot replicate live
performance.
I returned to the festival for Bertrand Tavernier's L.627, but unfortunately
it was definitely my least favorite of the film's I have seen thus far. The
movie takes place in Paris and deals with the problems of the drug enforcement
system there. The message I gleaned from the film was that the real criminals
are the dealers, not the users, and that the beauracracy of the system creates
crippling red tape and contributes to laziness on the part of the officers.
Now, I do not really disagree with any of those points, but all the film
seemed to offer a solution was that if the system simply aided the officers in
efficiently targeting the dealers, they would be able to effectively attack
and eradicate the drug problem. This felt far too simplistic to me, especially
when films made in recent years like TRAFFIC more accurately portray the
complexities of the drug situation, calling for more radical changes.
Another aspect of the film that I found troubling was that these cops
constantly targeted black people as the drug dealers when they would attempt
to make their busts. They unashamedly racially profiled and were incredibly
never wrong. They would bust into apartment buildings, flat out ask if any
blacks lived there, and would charge into their apartments to, without fail,
find them in possession of at least a small amount of drugs. Additionally, we
are made to feel sorry throughout the film for a white woman who is an addict,
a prostitute, and HIV positive. The blame for her situation is made to rest
primarily with the drug dealers, who are protrayed as black males, which
obviously contributes to the myth of young black men as threats, especially to
the stereotypical innocent white woman. Now, the disclaimer I must attach to
my opinions of this film is that I was tired as hell throughout the whole
thing and my ride home was intent on leaving before the discussion with
Tavernier, so I do not know if he offered any sort of explanation for this
representation. Admittedly, I did not resist the decision to leave too greatly
at the time as it was late, I was sleepy, and I was pretty turned off by the
film, but in retrospect I wonder if anything valuable was said. So if anyone
out there has seen L.627 and had a different response from mine, I would
really love to hear it. And now I'm off to bed as more movies are less than
seven hours away, be back tomorrow.
Friday peaked early with Haskell Wexler's film MEDIUM COOL. I had never seen
it before nor had I any idea what it was about, but after viewing it I could
not stop stop thinking about it for the rest of the day. I think Ebert likes
to weave mini-themes through his festival on occasion, and both THE GREY
AUTOMOBILE on Thursday and MEDIUM COOL Friday mixed documentary footage with
actors and fictional stories in a way that I do not believe I had encountered
before. Equally as great as the film was Wexler's on-stage conversation with
Roger, which ended up being more like a half hour monologue of thought's
running through the director's head. He made a lot of interesting connections
between the 1968 political climate of his film and the situation we find
ourselves in today. He also emphasized the fact that any film/television
product we consume is a fiction, packaged to send a certain political message,
no matter how real the images are that are being packaged. He built on that
point to criticize the way that films and the media like to create
well-defined good guys and bad guys and allow the good guy to get away with
all kinds of bad deeds because he has received this fantastic sanction, using
Dubya and Saddam as contemporary examples of this phenomenon.
This idea of unrealisticly clear-cut distinctions between good and bad arose
at the panel discussion that morning on women in the film industry. Having had
the opportunity to see several of these discussions over the past few days, I
have realized how artificial these supposedly spontaneous conversations are. I
have seen Sprecher sisters, Jill and Karen, co-writers (and Jill also as
director) of THIRTEEN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ONE THING, showing Saturday night at
the festival, talk in two different situations about their experiences making
films as women. And each time they repeated the same stories, even
interjecting comments in the same places. What felt so specific to the moment
and real the first time was completely flipped the next day. This does make me
upset with them or think they are any less great, because hearing all these
discussion has also made me aware of how many inane questions these people are
forced to acknowledge and to which they must formulate legitimate answers.
Still I think that if I tape recorded every one of these conversations over
the course of the weekend, I could probably edit together several of my own
personal panel discussions made up of the personnel of my choosing and about
whatever topics I liked, and they would probably be pretty close to what the
reality would be. So if I had any idea reinforced today, it is that I should
be skeptical of all media presented to me, whether it be on film or video or
just a group of authorities on a subject communicating in front of an
audience.
As for the rest of the films, I felt that WHAT'S COOKING? was ok, but while I
was entertained and interested in it throughout, I did not ever understand
what made it special enough to be in this festival. I imaging it was also hurt
by having the unenviable position of following not only MEDIUM COOL but also
Haskell Wexler himself. Unfortunately, the director of WHAT'S COOKING?,
Gurinder Chadna, could not make it to the festival, and while Ebert's bringing
his wife Chaz on stage to discuss the film with him was a nice gesture, I do
not feel that the audience gained a whole from the conversation.
I unfortunately had to miss THE BLACK PIRATE with the accompaniment by the
Alloy Orchestra, but those I talked to said that the the trio's performance
with the film was great as always as was the movie itself. If you ever
discover that this group is performing anywhere near you, I would certainly
recommend venturing to check them out. They have made some DVD’s of their
performances, and while those are cool, they obviously cannot replicate live
performance.
I returned to the festival for Bertrand Tavernier's L.627, but unfortunately
it was definitely my least favorite of the film's I have seen thus far. The
movie takes place in Paris and deals with the problems of the drug enforcement
system there. The message I gleaned from the film was that the real criminals
are the dealers, not the users, and that the beauracracy of the system creates
crippling red tape and contributes to laziness on the part of the officers.
Now, I do not really disagree with any of those points, but all the film
seemed to offer a solution was that if the system simply aided the officers in
efficiently targeting the dealers, they would be able to effectively attack
and eradicate the drug problem. This felt far too simplistic to me, especially
when films made in recent years like TRAFFIC more accurately portray the
complexities of the drug situation, calling for more radical changes.
Another aspect of the film that I found troubling was that these cops
constantly targeted black people as the drug dealers when they would attempt
to make their busts. They unashamedly racially profiled and were incredibly
never wrong. They would bust into apartment buildings, flat out ask if any
blacks lived there, and would charge into their apartments to, without fail,
find them in possession of at least a small amount of drugs. Additionally, we
are made to feel sorry throughout the film for a white woman who is an addict,
a prostitute, and HIV positive. The blame for her situation is made to rest
primarily with the drug dealers, who are protrayed as black males, which
obviously contributes to the myth of young black men as threats, especially to
the stereotypical innocent white woman. Now, the disclaimer I must attach to
my opinions of this film is that I was tired as hell throughout the whole
thing and my ride home was intent on leaving before the discussion with
Tavernier, so I do not know if he offered any sort of explanation for this
representation. Admittedly, I did not resist the decision to leave too greatly
at the time as it was late, I was sleepy, and I was pretty turned off by the
film, but in retrospect I wonder if anything valuable was said. So if anyone
out there has seen L.627 and had a different response from mine, I would
really love to hear it. And now I'm off to bed as more movies are less than
seven hours away, be back tomorrow.
<< Home