HOUSTON — Houston became the largest city in the United States to elect an openly gay mayor on Saturday night, as voters gave a solid victory to the city controller, Annise Parker. . .
With all precincts reporting, Ms. Parker, the city controller, had defeated Mr. Locke 53 percent to 47 percent.
Some of the best films we've seen are on again today.
Documentary: Prodigal Sons plays at 1pm at Alaska Experience Theater. This was a real surprise and my favorite in the documentaries that I've seen.
Features: Hipsters at 7:30pm and Birthday at 10:15pm at the Bear Tooth
I'd try to get tickets in advance for the two features. I suspect they'll be sold out. They are both outstanding - though very different - films. The Least Among You is at the Bear Tooth at 3 and is worth seeing. The lead actor - Lou Gosset Jr. is also in the film - is an Anchorage East High graduate and he'll be there to answer questions after the movie.
We're going to try to catch up on ones we've missed: Supershorts 2 at 1 at Out North, Shadow Billionaire at 3:15 at the Alaska Experience, and uncertain about after that. And there's the film workshop at Out North at 3pm, but we can only be at one place at a time.
We also want to see Vincent, but that plays again Sunday.
On the way to the Bear Tooth, there was a moose on one of the busiest intersections in town - Northern Lights and A Street.
At the Bear Tooth, the Martini Matinee had five shorts scheduled in the program and two were added, so that's seven.
Supershorts at Out North had 14.
Then back to Bear Tooth we saw "The Least Among You." (Something coming soon.)
Finally, the shorts program "Love and Pain" which had 10.
So that's 32 films yesterday. So it's ok that I can't remember them all.
For this post I'll just talk about two films from Super Shorts 1: The Eclectic Collection - The Burger and Shave - and one from the Martini Matinee - Fat Bike.
(The projection booth at Out North.)
All three of the films hit home. Shave was a kid talking about his dad who always had a mustache until one day his dad came out without his mustache and the kid freaked out. It wasn't his dad. He'd only known the dad with a mustache. On my first trip back to Thailand after serving in the Peace Corps there, I decided I needed to shave my beard. Facial hair just wasn't cool in Thailand back in those days (today it is). So I came out of the bathroom in Tokyo with a naked face, not thinking that much about it. But my son, about 12 at the time, looked at me stunned. "This is a trick isn't it? Put your beard back on." This was from a smart kid, so it must have been a real shock. It had been about eight years since he'd seen me without a beard and after watching the film, I understand his reaction better.
The Burger should be shown to all men before they get married - or maybe earlier. It's about a woman who suggests that her husband (boyfriend?) order a burger at the restaurant. He doesn't understand why she doesn't order one herself. Women, you can explain it to the men in your lives. Or better yet find a copy of the movie.
Fat Bike was about riding bikes all winter in Anchorage. They use very fat tires to ride through snow. The picture is of the Susitna 100 mile race. They had to walk their bikes a lot because it was snowing a lot during the race. There was even a glimpse of friends - Yvonne and Scott - among the racers. It is wonderful to ride your bike any time and when there's snow out, there's a particular bike high you get.
I just learned through APU that Dr. Don Bantz, Provost at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, has been named the new President of Alaska Pacific University. I'm personally delighted to hear this because I've known Don since about 1978 and I think he'll do great things for APU and Anchorage, and, I expect, the APU and UAA relationship.
Don lived in Anchorage for many years and was the Executive Director of the Anchorage Neighborhood Health Center back in its early days. He has his PhD in Public Administration from the University of Southern California. Click the link for Dr. Bantz' official background information, plus that of the other candidates.
I'm getting ready to go to the AIFF Martini Matinee, but I need to call Don and congratulate him.
I would note that all my bog coverage of the APU Presidential Search came from APU information and not from any of the candidates. But I did take this picture when he was in Anchorage for his interviews.
Last year's AIFF best feature film winner Neil Mansfield made a short film when he was at the Festival last year. It is scheduled to be shown at the Martini Matinee this afternoon (Friday) at the Bear Tooth at 2:30pm. The AIFF website says:
Permafrost Alaskan Vodka will give out a big cash prize for their video contest. Also, a movie trivia contest with some great prizes will be part of the afternoon’s festivities.sponsored by PermaFrost Vodka..Bear Tooth, 2:30-4:45 PM, $10 or all films and events pass.
What in the world do I think I'm doing here reviewing movies? And what's the purpose of a review? And why should anyone pay any attention to what you say?
I think about these questions every time I write something that includes any sort of judgment. I try to couch things in terms of my perspective rather than Godlike judgments, recognizing that different people have different criteria for a good movie. So I try to be as objective as I can, citing aspects of a movie that cause me to make any general statements. But there are lots of factors that go into writing about films at a festival.
For one thing, festival movies are NOT usually Hollywood movies. Those follow more closely formulas for what is likely to sell. They have a plot lines and structures and topics that have proven to sell well in the past. When they do venture onto new ground, it is very incrementally.
Festival movies are often made because the filmmaker wanted to make that movie. They are often very low budget (we learned Saturday night that Bomber was made for about $30,000 - with any future profits divided among the cast and crew.) And the best try out some different formula or film language that challenges the audience. Last year's feature wnner, "Streetsweeper" got panned by some because there was no discernible plot - beyond some man comes out of the sea in the early dawn, finds his streetsweeper cart, puts on his clothes, and then sweeps his way across the city of Newcastle, Australia. Neil Mansfield, the director, was making a film using a different concept of film than many are used to.
It was exactly the kind of movie I come to a festival for. In my review last year, I offered some alternative ways to think about the movie. The first was to think about it like a visual concert, where there is no verbal content, just the music and the images.
The ADN reviewer this year had trouble with Son of the Sunshine.
I found it all very long, slow and -- aside from one scene in which Sonny carries his mother out of the hospital and deposits her in a situation that may help her get her act together (I'm skeptical) -- possessed of no obvious story.
No obvious story. Why does it have to have an obvious story? Does Joyce's Ulysses have an obvious story? There are other film languages than Hollywood formulas. An essay by Harley Hahn helps us think about abstract art:
Abstract paintings are different. They have designs, shapes or colors that do not look like specific physical objects. As such, abstract paintings are a lot harder to understand than representational paintings. Indeed, when you look at an abstract painting, you often have no idea what it is you are actually seeing. Let's see if we can make sense out of this. . .
A second type of abstract painting, sometimes referred to as "pure" abstract art, is even more obtuse. Such paintings do not reflect any form of conventional reality: all you see are shapes, colors, lines, patterns, and so on. Here, for example, is one of my paintings, entitled "Blue #1", which I painted in 2000.
As you can see, nothing in this painting is recognizable. There are no people, fruit or even water lilies.
When you look at such art, it is natural to wonder why anyone would bother to create such paintings in the first place. What could the artist possibly have in mind?
Films at film festivals get to push beyond the normal conventions and into new forms, cinematic equivalents to non-representational art. Let's go back to one of Hahn's sentences:
"[A]bstract paintings are a lot harder to understand than representational paintings"
Movies like Streetsweeper and, in a milder way, Son of the Sunshine are a lot harder to understand. They don't walk us through a story the way most movies do. They're about something other than a typical narrative plot. Son of the Sunshine for me was more about feelings than about story. It was about someone's life - not so much about events organized into a story but about events organized around conveying what things felt like.
The film centered around Sonny. I felt like I could see the world from his point of view. The other characters were more problematic, but that's probably how they looked to Sonny. But that's how I see it.
Movies like this involve the audience more. You can't just passively view it, you have to work. It encourages the audience to discuss it afterward, to participate in determining the meaning of the film. And in those discussions, we reveal things about ourselves and how we see the world. Others get insights into how we think. And we get to know the others better. And we may even get to know ourselves better.
Is it good to have the movie ambiguous? Doesn't that mean that the director failed to get his message across? I guess that depends on what the director's intent was. Was the movie intended to get a specific message across? Perhaps it was simply the filmmaker's personal activity that he now allows others to watch. Perhaps it was intended to make us think.
That said very few people have written books like Ulysses that worked, and just putting random shots together into a film doesn't make it a good film. Ryan Ward, in the brief video conversation below says, "The story is the story, and the story holds up..." so maybe I'm reading way too much into this. Ryan Ward was the writer, the director, and the lead actor. Perhaps having a different director and/or writer might have led to more discussion on the set about aspects of the film and Ward would have had to think out and explain his vision more and those discussions would have resulted in a 'better' movie. Who knows?
And so if you have a movie that is 'in a different cinematic language' how do you know if it is good or if the filmmaker is just playing a joke on the audience? (I suspect someone has a whole blog dedicated to the study of what is good as this one is loosely dedicated to how we know things.)
There is no absolute way to determine if a movie is good because 'good' is a subjective determination. Some people like asparagus and other people hate it. The same is true with movies. But just as we can discuss qualities of asparagus - health aspects, texture, color, taste - we can discuss qualities of a movie. And as we become more knowledgeable about movies in general, we learn to see nuances that we hadn't seen before. Salmon fishers see immediately the difference between reds, silvers, kings, etc. The average person can't see those differences without careful inspection.
It's the same with films. One gains an understanding of the different film conventions by seeing lots of films, discussing them with experts, and reading different knowledgeable reviewers. One may have to watch a movie several times to pick up details that were missed. Knowing something about the filmmakers themselves helps us, just as knowing that Picasso could paint a beautiful representational portrait if he chose, and that he didn't paint abstracts because it was all he could do. It might also help to let go of worrying about whether someone is able to fool you. When someone does make a joke, it can be a very good joke. My favorite film joke, De Düva (The Dove), is itself a brilliant little film. But you have to have seen at least one Bergman film to really appreciate it.
Son of the Sunshine plays again today, Friday, Dec. 11 at 5:30pm at the Bear Tooth, so you can judge for yourself.
Here's a short video of Son of the Sunshine writer, director, and lead actor Ryan Ward in the Bear Tooth lobby right after his Q&A following the showing of the film The Q&A is much longer but was in a very dark theater - you can only see shapes - I wasn't sure I even wanted to post it. But after writing all this, I think that it's fair that you listen to what he has to say.
Here are some audience comments on: Adopt a Sailor, Circus Rosaire, Son of the Sunshine, Birthday, Against the Current, Shadow Billionaire, Paddle to Seattle, American Primitive, and Godspeed.
There's one commenter who got filmed in the still dark theater. Can any Alaskans recognize her voice?
Screen Daily announced that AIFF opening night film Hipsters was included in the 69 films listed for the Golden Globe Foreign Language Award. Hipsters shows again Saturday night at 8pm in the Bear Tooth. Definitely worth seeing.
A National Geographic news release tells us that Paddle to Seattle won Best Documentary at the Minneapolis Underground Film Festival:
We are so pleased that you have been able to follow along on our adventure. We are honored to announce that last weekend Paddle won Best Documentary at the Minneapolis Underground Film Festival! To date, the film has completed 3 festival screenings winning major awards at each.
Josh is in Alaska this week screening at the Anchorage International Film Festival. On Monday people were turned away at the door for the sold out show at the Bear Tooth Theatre. At a capacity of 420, Josh said there was a line extending out of the building. This Friday, the film will play simultaneously on two screens, again at the Anchorage Festival, to accommodate the anticipated interest.
I checked with Rand - the AIFF Programmer - and here's what's happening Friday. Paddle to Seattle is already scheduled for Alaska Experience Theater at 5:45pm. The second showing will be in AET's second screen at 6:05. That way the director can do Q&A after each showing.
I've heard of several sold out performances at the festival this year and I suspect that tickets for Saturday night's Hipsters at 7:30 pm and Birthday at 10:15pm will be sold out. You can buy tickets in advance at the Bear Tooth to be sure you get a seat.
And there will be extra showings of the winners in the different categories next week at the Bear Tooth.
In an earlier post I offered one defense of Obama's getting the prize - that simply his election changed the world's dialogue and the potential for peace. While he may not have taken actions that can be connected with increased peace, beyond campaigning for the presidency, I asked readers to identify someone or some group that had had a greater impact on world peace than Obama's election.
Today Obama said in his speech there were more deserving people for the prize. While there are people who have made greater personal sacrifices in pursuit of peace, I'm not sure that their impact on world peace was greater than Obama's election.
Since I wrote the original post on this topic, I thought further that if his mere election changed the dynamics of international relations, then perhaps the American voters, rather than Obama himself, should have been given the prize.
But after hearing Obama's speech in Oslo today, I can only wonder how we have managed to get such a thoughtful, and forthright president who can express his vision so eloquently. Maybe the years of having Bush as president have lowered my expectations. This president dealt with the complexities of the world, the contradictory tugs that our values and desires pull us. His words don't paint a black and white world, but one of great nuance. I can travel the world once again and proudly point to the man that my fellow citizens and I elected to be our president.
Yet I can't help but wonder what the people who support Palin think of such a speech. Is it too subtle? Is it too abstract? Part of me suspects that the better Obama is, the more some of his detractors oppose him. They simply can't deal with their world view being challenged in any way.
It's been somewhat foggy all day. Here's 4th and C as we head for the Alaska Experience Theater.
If we sit in the back row the large, close screen is bearable.
Again, we chose to go with a documentary - Playground - instead of a feature. This was one of the documentaries in competition, but so was the feature, Against the Current.
It's clear why we'd rather see entertainment than go to class, but this is another topic everyone should know. This was about child prostitution. After a brief introduction that talked about the issue overseas, the movie zeroed in on the US. Did you know that Atlanta is the 13th most frequent destination for people arranging to have sex with kids?
I can understand that a lot of public policy issues are hard to grasp. I don't really know whether the bank bailout put the brakes on the recession or not. And while I'm convince global climate change is real and is serious, I can understand that someone who doesn't want to believe that can point to experts that support their position.
But child prostitution? There's nothing to debate here. The movie makes it clear that these girls (it mentions boys, but focuses on girls) are not doing this voluntarily. In one interview a girl explains how she's trained to act like she enjoys it, and when she considers telling the client he smells and she doesn't want to do this, she thinks of the money she'll lose and the beating she'll get.
The movie says while this used to be thought of as a low income problem, with the internet, that's no longer the case. One mother talked about how her wonderful middle class daughter got caught up in drugs as a teen and is still on the streets at 22.
And there was discussion of situations where a known sex offender was in a motel room with an underage girl, but since they were both dressed, nothing could be done. Or a father who was told when he snatched his underage daughter off the streets, that he could be prosecuted if he didn't let her go. Or the issue of privacy violations that prevent publishing pictures of kids being bought and sold - even though their pictures are up online in sex acts.
If the anti-abortion crusade but a quarter of their time into this issue, actual living kids might be saved from physical and mental torture that drives them to death, drugs, and/or lifetime psychological issues.
Why don't we want to see this sort of movie? Why don't we want to take an hour to educate ourselves on these horrific events happening in our own towns? I don't know.
As a movie, this was more in the educational documentary mode like Tapped, the one the other day on bottled water. Not like Mount St. Elias which was basically an action film, or Prodigal Sons which was almost a reality show with the lead character - it appeared - videotaping part of her life. Prodigal Sons is still my favorite so far among the documentaries I've seen.
It's clear that we deal with this sort of subject through feelings easier than through logic. The interviews told far more than the statistics, though both are needed. The special part of this movie was the exquisite animation by Japanese animator, Yoshitomo Nara. These animated interludes were brief timeouts from th heart rendering realities.
I also caught this quick video with one of the AIFF volunteers at the desk before we went into the movie.
Then we went over to the Bear Tooth to see American Primitive. I'll talk about that one later.
