AIFF - Labeled

We saw the first two minutes or so of this film the other night. I learned today it was supposed to be the intro for "Crossing Alaska with Horses." But it was so crowded there and the [Horses] filmmaker was there to speak afterward, they pulled it to have more time for the Q&A.

But in those first couple of minutes I fell in love with the movie. The visuals of the paint being poured into the tray, cleaning the brushes, painting the rooms were just exquisite. And tonight after seeing the rest of the ten minute movie it was even better. Elaine Riddick was sterilized at age 14 after giving birth after being raped. Now a house painter, she tells her story against the beauty of the images of the paint, painting, and peeling wall paper. She says the painting has helped with her anger. Dan Currier, the film maker, has a great eye, and through the visuals turned a compelling story into an extraordinary short documentary.

And it won the best short documentary award at the festival. You can see the whole video at his website.

The video below shows a few seconds near the beginning of the movie and a bit of the film maker Q&A after the movie was shown tonight.

AIFF - My Picks [Final Version]

The Festival awards were given out last night, but let me identify my own picks first and then official award winners. I saw four more tonight and have added them into the revised documentary table. It was interesting putting these tables together and seeing what all I've seen. Here's my first go at this. I'll do a final version after tonight's movies. I heard it said there were about 175 films at the conference (many shorts) and you can see that I only saw a small percentage of that. But I had to make lists of the films I saw to figure out which ones I liked best. And that led to the tables below so you can see what my choices were from. There are still a couple I want to see and I'm hoping I can this week before all the dvd's go back. Those are: Henchmen, by the filmmaker I met last week and Horn OK Please. (I just saw that the second one is 90 minutes. I'd thought it was a short animation. Maybe I should put others on my list.)

The tables for each category show the films I've seen in that category and how I rated them. Many I have mentioned already on the blog. You can put the name in the search blog window at the top left if you want more on that film.

Feature films:


Animated (I wasn't that impressed with most. They were technically good, but empty.)

Short features:
[Before Dawn got left off this chart, I'd put it in the "Go Out of Your Way to See It" Column]


Documentaries: (It turns out I didn't see many short documentaries - both tonight - so I'm making one documentary category.)


I'll do more on the four documentaries we saw tonight. And, making these tables, I realize I should discuss the criteria that I used. Actually, the first step is my gut reaction. Then I go looking for reasons I responded that way. More on that later.

AIFF - Film Makers Forum 2

Today's the last day of the Festival and I got to Ship Creek Mall for the filmmaker forum only to find the doors locked, but there was a note - moved to Starbucks at 5th & F. There I found 11 folks around the table talking about making films.

A majority were local people and talk got around to how to improve the film making environment in Alaska itself - ways for people to keep in touch with like minded others, equipment rental possibilities, etc. People talked about projects and passed out their cards. There was even someone from Bristol Bay Alliance looking to connect to local film makers so they can make a film about Bristol Bay and the potential impacts of mining. He made it clear they want an all Alaskan project - funding, film makers, everything. And they want it something that talks to people in the middle, not the extremes. Here's a glimpse at the meeting.

AIFF - Shorts in Competition Catch Up

This evening we saw Body/Antibody at the museum and then back to the Fireweed for Cthulhu.

But I need to catch up with all the great shorts we saw at the Shorts in Competition showing Friday night. Was that only yesterday? This was a very strong field of good shorts.

I'll give you the Festival website blurb and my comments.

The Wine Bar
When blue-collar Henry orders a beer in a snooty wine bar he offends everyone and has to defend himself and the woman sitting next to him.
In Short Competition

This one I already liked the best last Saturday and did a short comment then. This one is just a very well made, funny, insightful, and you feel good at the end.

Dear Lemon Lima,
A lonely girl with a vivid imagination struggles to plant seeds of love after her narcissistic sweetheart breaks her heart.

Posted about this one already.

Boletos Por Favor
(Tickets Please)
A train, a pursuit, only one way to escape.

It's hard to write about shorts without telling too much. This one was like walking into a highly charged situation and getting to watch it close up. The ending wasn't as satisfying as it could have been.

Anonymous
New fresh kind of independent cinema.

This one blew me away. It had a quirky style, every now and then it got jerky, like stuttering visually, along with the sound of the turntable scratching back and forth. And it was just right for this strange little story of a writer, his typewriter, the woman in the apartment next door, and an elevator. This was my favorite. Though it might not be everyone's taste.

Security
Dark humor veers into tragedy in Security, a drama about an American Immigration agent at Newark International Airport whose private fears spill into his professional life when he confronts an Iranian mother and her son. Starring Chris Messina (Six Feet Under). Based on the play by Israel Horovitz.

This one had me so pulled in that I totally forgot about my camera. Powerful. Homeland Security is NOT the hero of this film.

La Parabolica
(The Parabolic Dish)
During the broadcast of the Pope's visit, Vicente’s television is broken. Desperate, he decides to make a homemade parabolic dish.

This was the weakest of the bunch. It was fine, but not up to the quality of the others.

Demain la Veille
(Waiting for Yesterday) (See the trailer)
Bob is a 30 year old man like all others: he walks backwards, looses his memory, his skills, like a good citizen. But one night, he wakes up in sweat realizing that the world that he lives in is not “normal”. As he starts behaving differently, he finds himself chased by mercenaries, trying to put him back on track. Little does he know what he is in for: fighting the abstract power that has taken mankind backwards.

This one was also amazing. Seeing the world go backwards - wine pouring out of the mouth into the glass, ink disappearing off the page into the pen - is a nice brain stretcher. Making the film go backward isn't that hard, but at times I thought the storm troopers might actually have been running backward. I'd like a copy of this to play over and over again. Not sure if this was that good or it was simply the novelty of everything going backwards. Definitely worth seeing.

AIFF - Your Beautiful Cul De Sac Home

Waiting at the Fireweed to get in.






Getting to talk to the director of this film, Cameron Kirkwood was an extra bonus after watching this film. There was excellent acting, complicated story lines, and hard issues - how to live in a compromised world. Bringing all of it together wasn't easy, and I still had questions about how Trevor connected with Ben. Cameron pointed to events in the film that did tie them together, but I just didn't know enough at that point in the film. He mentioned that an earlier version was even more vague and they'd debated about how much to make it all clear. I think leaving some things unspelled out can be a good idea. I was making the connections here, and I think in a second viewing things would all fall into place. As I ponder this issue, I think that the basics of the story line should be fairly clear at the end. There shouldn't be questions like, but how did that guy get in there? With the basic story line in place, there should be as many layers of story as you can get in for the viewer to discover in multiple viewings. There was also a 'lecture" toward the end. An older name sits Ben down and tells him what's what. The actor was very good and it worked. But it was on the edge of heavy handed and I'm sure for people who reject the message it would have seemed to have crossed the line.

The movie also did a good job of integrating the issue of domestic violence into script, and issue I have an interest in. We've gotten to see some really fine films showing peeks into different people's worlds in non-standard film languages. Thanks to all the volunteers who have put this all together.

AIFF - Most Likely To

I saw two very good Canadian films - both about young men at early career stage trying to figure out how to live in the world. They were both well made and had stories to tell.

The blurb for Most Likely To says:

The film was shot in a Danish style imploying many techniques found in Dogme 95 practice but specifically was inspired by murdered filmmaker Theo van Gogh. 1) The film was shot with a rule of three - Shot in 3 days, with 3 camera's, 3 takes per scene, for 3 grand. 2) Without any rehearsal, the dialouge in the film is completely improvised.

Tony Sheppard, the Festival founder, said they did it for $5000. Five high school friends meet as they are at early stages of their careers, or should be. They are staying for the weekend at the home of the boss of the young attorney in the group. And he is worried that the party they are planning is going to cost him his job. Movie parties can be bad, but this one was filmed well - including split screen stuff. But things kick into high gear after the party. As they discuss whether to call the cops or not, I thought, this is the film that Alaskans should watch. So many people ask how Juneau got so corrupt. How is it Kott Kohring might not get that they did wrong. Here are five young men making a major decision based on the potential consequences to their lives. And they don't think about it twice. Good movie!

AIFF - Playing Cats and Moose

We were a little late to Out North so we had to sit on the floor to watch these two films.

The crowd, or at least parts of the crowd, loved the first movie - The Dalai Lama's Cat. The film festival's program blurb isn't too far off:

'Lonely Planet' meets 'The Office' at a dizzying 5000 metres.

But I had several other reactions, none positive.

1. This is another self promotion travel film. Last night we had Crossing Alaska with Horses, and earlier this year we had Asiemut. You go on a trip, take a video camera (and crew in the case of Horses), and pay for your trip by making a movie. Asiemut worked for me. The two from the festival didn't. This one not at all.
2. The movie has nothing to do with the Dalai Lama or cats. The title is premised on a story one of the travelers heard about the Dalai Lama's cats and reincarnation. They could find nothing about this cat story - in the book stores of Kathmandu or in Tibet.
3. The use of the Dalai Lama's name in the title is nothing but blatant exploitation of his name. People regard the Dalai Lama highly and drew many to the film. This film, while criticizing the Chinese in Tibet for disappearing any evidence of the Dalai Lama in Tibet, didn't show any understanding of the Dalai Lama himself. I'm sure though, the Dalai Lama would just offer a mysterious smile if he saw this, but I think he deserves a cut of any profit they make.
4. These 40 or 50 somethings acted like drunk frat boys and made ignorant fun of everyone and everything. I feel a little like a grump here, but when you visit the holy place of several religions, leaving your girlfriend's fluffy pink slippers and underwear as an offering, it isn't humorous for me. Acting like this at home is one thing, but when you do it elsewhere, it's just rude. Try this line: "He made friends with the locals by dropping a little kid on his head" and then the audience laughs at him playing with a little kid and dropping him (accidentally, I'm sure) on his head. I guess what gets me aroused is that this is rich white privilege at work. The Nepalese and Tibetans put up with stupid tourists for the same reason they put up with the Chinese - they have no choice. But if one of these Tibetans were to come to Britain or Australia (they said they were Brits living in Australia) or to the US and acted like they did, they'd probably run into serious problems, as we saw in a short film later in the evening called "Security" about an Iranian woman and her son who get special interrogation in a US airport on the way to visit her husband teaching at a US university.
5. They told us after the showing that they lied about their film making intentions because they wouldn't have gotten permission to enter Tibet and their guides could have gotten into trouble. Nevertheless, the were willing to risk their guides' livelihood and possible freedom for their own lark. Exposing others to such risks to document human rights abuses to the world is one thing, to have a laugh and possibly make some money that the risk takers won't share and have never consent to is quite another. I understand self centered 13 and 14 year olds doing this, but I expect more from adults.

Look, if I met these guys in a pub in Australia or in Anchorage, I'm sure we'd tell good stories and get on fine. But my overseas experiences have been attempts to learn the language where I was and learn about people from their perspectives, not to make fun of the people I visited. Many of the films in this festival have given us glimpses into the culture and inner worlds of people we would never otherwise meet. This film did give us insight into Mike and Peter's world, one that enjoys privileges the people they meet will never have. And they use those privileges not to learn, not to share what they've learned, or not even to be introspective, but to clown around with the backdrop a people in poverty. They don't laugh with the people of Tibet, but at them. This is a far different movie than, say Asiemut, where two film makers biked through Mongolia to India. They used the 'exoticness' of the people of Tibet and the cache of the Dalai Lama's name to pay for their trip to Tibet. They said they sent five copies of the movie to the Dalai Lama, but they didn't say if they make a profit they would share any of it with the people of Tibet.


Below the film makers talk after the showing.



Oh yeah, the title mentioned moose too. The second film was about local heroes Rick Sinnott and Jessy Coltrane, the wildlife biologists who help keep humans and moose (and bears and other critters) coexisting in Anchorage. This film was fun. Rick is well known and generally well liked in Anchorage and I even went out with him once to band magpies. Not an easy task. We like our moose walking the streets and his work helps to keep the moose and the people safe so that this can continue. That's what this film made for the BBC is about.

AIFF -El Pallasso i el Führer (The Clown and the Führer)

The Clown and the Führer is the best feature I've seen at the Festival. I wrote about it last night a bit. Here are some clips from the showing.

Kott Trial - Kott's Statement

Kott's statement to the court was brief and while he apologized for what he said "away from the floor" [on the tapes?], he didn't seem to think he'd done anything wrong as a legislator. My notes (again, typing not as fast he as was talking, but it will give you an idea of the statement)

I want people of AK to know I’m deeply sorry for my actions and words. All my actions [in the legislature], I truly felt I did in the best interests of the State of Alaska. My statements away from the floor of the legislature, I deeply regret and apologize. I hope that the opinion of me will soften over the years. Always been my goal to bring out the potential of the state. To the court I apologize for being here and taking up your time.

I'm sure the Anchorage Daily News will have it more accurate. They and APRN and others may already have the audio up.

Kott Trial - Calculation of Amount Kott Received Correction

In the previous post I raised a question about the math for figuring out the total amount of money Kott received for the sentencing guidelines. I talked to Lisa Demer (ADN reporter) and she corrected my number for the poll. I'd written down $15,000 and figured that was not right. She said it was $2750 [I think I heard two@750 got $1500 and added a zero to boot.] which now I remember is what it was calculated during the trial. That gets the judge's total of $29, 743. But I also have in my notes: [WARNING: This was typing as fast as I could while he was talking. There are missing pieces and maybe even incorrect pieces.]

Judge: Both agree on $5000. I think the evidence that it was a bribe is insufficient. Allen and Kott were close friends and Allen admired Kott’s work ethic. To Allen, $5000 is not very much money, so he literally probably didn’t care if he didn’t get it back. To Kott, it was fairly significant. Probably he did think of it as a loan. This explanation is just as persuasive as the argument it’s a bribe. But I will keep the $5000 in the calculation of the value.

Lisa didn't hear that and thought the $5000 would be excluded. She has the audio from today and she'll check on that. She's younger and her ears are better, so I probably got that wrong.

If the $5000 were included, it would bump it up to a higher bracket. Right now it is in the $10,000 - $30,000 bracket. That would add points to the sentencing formula. But they already went a little above the formula so it probably wouldn't matter at this point.

[Lisa emailed that the judge said $5000 would NOT be included.]