Young Musicians

We were invited to attend a concert at a local elementary school to see our friends' daughter play in the band. It's been a while since I've been at an event like this. These are mostly very new musicians and they achieved a number of the goals their teachers set out for them. It took me back to my junior high school days in the band and orchestra. When the music teacher visited our sixth grade class and encouraged us to pick an instrument if we didn't already have one, I chose the oboe - the duck in Peter and the Wolf. Since there was no other oboe player, I got the part. I even got to use a new oboe if I took private lessons besides. I never got very good, though I did learn how to make my reeds - a necessary skill for oboists.   Then in high school the required classes squeezed out electives like music. I'm glad there weren't home videos in those days so I don't have to listen to what we sounded like.



I also want to note that I was pleased to go to a concert at an elementary school in December where only one Christmas related piece - Jingle Bells - was played.  I realize that for some, this change is seen as what's wrong with the United States today.  But as a Jew, who was there as a guest of Hindu friends, it was the first time I felt like I was welcome as an equal at a December school event.   I felt like someone had thought about the feelings of non-Christians and decided to respect them. 

Christmas is a religious holiday.  In public schools, kids in minority religions definitely feel pressure to go along with the majority religion.  I can only ask Christians to imagine their children being in a situation where all the kids are expected to sing songs that proclaim faith to a deity of another religion.  It's very uncomfortable for the children and the parents.  I realize that many Christians feel that as the majority, they should be allowed to celebrate Christmas in school, that kids of other religions, or no religion, should just adapt. 

That makes me think of my Chinese students in Beijing who claimed there was no discrimination at their school against non-Han Chinese students.  One student said to me that he'd thought about what I said and he really believed that the Mongolian and Tibetan students in our class were treated like all the others.  I said he's probably right, except for one thing:  their education has all been in Chinese, not their own language, and they have spent all their school time learning a Chinese version of history and culture, not their own.

Another student told me everyone was equal in China.  I asked if a Tibetan could be president of China.  His answer, after a pause, was, "Vice President."  When I pointed out that if they couldn't be president, then they weren't equal.  His logical response was, "But 93% of the population is Han Chinese.  It wouldn't make sense for a Tibetan to be their president."  To which I could only say, "That may be true, but then they are second class citizens."

I do think that comparative religion should be taught in schools so that people know about various religions - including atheism.  But I don't think different religious holidays should be celebrated in school until all religions are treated with equal respect, and not with the attitude of, "OK, put in a Hanukkah song and then we can get back to the Christmas stuff." (I know that most parents are respectful really do want their children to be exposed to other religions.)

That said, there is some very beautiful Christmas music which I learned because I played in the orchestra.  I would not have learned them under today's policies.  That would be a loss for me.  It all boils down to respect and power.  As long as there are teachers and parents who believe it is their duty to convert others to their religion, celebrating religious holidays in schools is problematic.  And some Christians feel the commercialization of Christmas diminishes its religious significance and would prefer to celebrate it at home and in church. I recognize that it's hard to 'lose' something that you take for granted - like Christmas celebrations in public schools - and I hope those parents who feel strongly about Christmas can find ways to pass on these traditions with celebrations in their families and at churches, as non-Christians have always celebrated their religious holidays. 

AIFF 2010: Tim Vernor, Director, Seattle True Independent Film Festival

Tim Vernor, Director of the Seattle True Independent Film Festival (STIFF) was here checking out the Anchorage festival.  On the video below he talks about one of the shorts (I liked) in the AIFF - Dishonesty - and IPF (Independent Feature Project) Seattle's Spotlight Award.  Alaska is part of the area covered by IPF Seattle, so Alaska film makers might want to check out their website. 

AIFF 2010: Anatomy of Vince Guaraldi and Beekeeper at Last Day of Festival

Andrew Thomas' Anatomy of Vince Guaraldi is a wonderful documentary about the jazz pianist who composed "Cast Your Fate to the Wind" and the music for the Peanuts TV specials.  Thomas told me (you can hear it yourself here) the movie is really about serendipity - and he's right.  Well, it's his movie, he should know.  It covers a wide range of topics from civil rights to the hungry i to the opening of the Grace Cathedral in San Francisco.  Lots of archive film from the Guaraldi family that's never been seen before.  And so much good music!  It was runner up for best documentary at the festival and won the Audience Award for Best Documentary.  And because you happened to read this, you could go see the movie and meet someone who will change your life ( for the better.)  Or get an idea that points you in a new direction.  Or be out of your house when a plane crashes into it.  The power of serendipity. 

Do you think I liked this movie?  I'm going to see it again tonight.  5:30pm at the Bear Tooth.  

And Beekeepers  was runner up for Best Snowdance film and for Audience Award for Snowdance.  I haven't seen this one - it conflicted with Ashes - but I'll get to tonight at 8pm at the Bear Tooth.  This is an Alaskan made movie (that's why it's in the Snowdance category) that's supposed to have laughs, and - a plus for people in Anchorage - it's a movie with settings you'll recognize. 

I grew up in LA and it wasn't until I was a student in Germany for a year, that I understood how much of my environment was reflected in the movies and TV shows I saw.  There I was across the Atlantic and could go to the movies and see places where I grew up. 

Alaskans get a glimpse of that when they see Scandinavian films and it isn't dark at night (or light much in the day), or there are birch forests.  With Beekeepers you'll see Anchorage as the background. 

It's the very last night of the festival.  And, wait, I forgot.  There are two more short films to see - the winners of the Quik Freeze film contest.  I haven't seen them yet either.  They had five days to make the movies.  They play with Beekeepers. Fortunately, they're short. 

US Government Employees Banned from Reading What Everyone Else in the World May Read

In an AP article published in Wednesday's Anchorage Daily News, I read one unbelievable sentence after another.  For instance,

The Air Force is blocking computer access to The New York Times and other media sites that published sensitive diplomatic documents released by the Internet site WikiLeaks, a spokeswoman said Tuesday.

Let me get this straight.  The New York Times has been blocked on Air Force computers, because it published some classified documents from WikiLeaks.  So Al Qaeda members, college students in Denmark, Taliban insurgents, and most anybody in the world with access to the internet can read things Air Force people aren't allowed to read.  Doesn't that put them at a disadvantage if they don't know things about the US government and other governments that everyone else knows? 

Even though the documents are available around the world, they are still considered classified and thus can't be read.  I seem to recall something about horses and barns. . .

But there's more:

The White House on Dec. 3 formally reminded all federal employees and government contractors that anyone without a security clearance is not permitted to read classified documents, such as the diplomatic messages published by WikiLeaks, even on a personal computer at home outside work hours.

So anyone who works for the government is banned from reading any of the Wikileaks documents, even at home on their personal computers.  Is anyone else scratching her head about this logic?  What exactly are they afraid of?  That a government employee might:

•  read their bosses' gossip? 
•  know something everyone else knows?
•  sell the document to a spy?  
•  post the document on a website?
•  actually know something about  a particular cable and challenge its validity?

Does anyone wonder at the government's bizarre logic on security issues?  How can something that is available around the world on the internet and in newspapers still be considered classified?  Isn't this like the Emperor's New Clothes?  Does anyone not understand why people might wonder whether this sort of logic underlies other security policies, like electronic strip searches at airports? 

Let's see now.  The US is against censorship, is for freedom of the press, believes an informed electorate is the basis of democracy, and lectures other nations when they restrict their citizens' internet access. 

Just last January, according to the NY Times, Secretary of State Clinton was chastising China for censoring the internet: 

In a sweeping, pointed address that dealt with the Internet as a force for both liberation and repression, Mrs. Clinton said: “Those who disrupt the free flow of information in our society or any other pose a threat to our economy, our government and our civil society. Countries or individuals that engage in cyber-attacks should face consequences and international condemnation.”[emphasis added]

. . . Mrs. Clinton also identified Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Tunisia, Vietnam and Uzbekistan as countries that constrain Internet freedom or persecute those who use the Web to circulate unpopular ideas. She pointed to an Egyptian blogger, Bassem Samir, who was in the audience at the Newseum in Washington for Mrs. Clinton’s speech and had been imprisoned by Egyptian authorities.

[Anyone else out there conjuring up an Egyptian newspaper writing, "President Mubarak
pointed to an Australian blogger, Julian Assange, who was in the audience at the Sphinx in Cairo for Mubarak's speech and had been imprisoned by British authorities"?]

. . .Mr. Malinowski [the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch] said: “I really thought this was groundbreaking. She showed no hesitation in naming countries, including U.S. allies, for suppressing speech on the Internet. She made a very strong case for connecting Internet freedom to core American national security interests.”[emphasis added]

OK, if you read the whole speech you can see that Mrs. Clinton does say there are limits to speech freedom

• recruiting terrorists
• hate speech
• distributing stolen property (copyrighted material)
• child pornography

but she also says,

But these challenges must not become an excuse for governments to systematically violate the rights and privacy of those who use the internet for peaceful political purposes.

She does go on to warn against hackers and cyber attacks:

States, terrorists, and those who would act as their proxies must know that the United States will protect our networks. Those who disrupt the free flow of information in our society or any other pose a threat to our economy, our government, and our civil society. Countries or individuals that engage in cyber attacks should face consequences and international condemnation. In an internet-connected world, an attack on one nation’s networks can be an attack on all. And by reinforcing that message, we can create norms of behavior among states and encourage respect for the global networked commons.

 But she had in mind, at that time, China's attack on Google.  Again from the January NY Times piece cited above:

While the details remained sketchy, her remarks could have far-reaching consequences, given the confrontation between Google and the Chinese government over the company’s assertion that its networks had been subject to a sophisticated attack that originated in mainland China. 

There are two basic issues here:

1.   Internet security and preventing hackers from 
1. interrupting the free flow of information  and from
2. stealing private or classified information
   
   Clinton's speech covers work the State Department is doing to protect cyber security:
   

   "We have taken steps as a government, and as a Department, to find diplomatic solutions to strengthen global cyber security. We have a lot of people in the State Department working on this. . . And President Obama has just appointed a new national cyberspace policy coordinator who will help us work even more closely to ensure that everyone’s networks stay free, secure, and reliable." 

    
2. Protecting citizens from government censorship of things the government doesn't want them to know.

But it seems to me that if you have something that other people want, you have a responsibility to protect it well.  For example, if banks just stacked up their money on the counters, people would be blaming the banks as well as the people who pocketed the money on their way out of the bank. And what about people outside the bank who might be given money from the people who were in the bank? 

And if the US sets up a computer system full of classified documents that some army private can get into and download 250,000 classified and unclassified cables and send off into the internet, people ought to be raising questions about the government's security as well as blaming the people who walked off with the cables before they start fussing at the person the cables were given to. 

The third transaction I made with my Visa card last September when we drove to Vancouver was blocked by Visa because the card wasn't where they thought it should be.  But the US put their classified cables on a computer system where 250,000 could be downloaded and sent off to WikiLeaks.  Sounds like stacks of cash on the bank counter to me. 

And now that many of the cables have been posted online for the world to see, US government employees are told they can't even use their own computers to read them, on their own time.  

And the US is doing everything it can to get WikiLeaks shut down. 

Isn't this pretty much what Clinton was telling China and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Tunisia and Vietnam and Uzbekistan not to do?  Shutting down internet sites to prevent people from reading information the government didn't like?  Blocking their citizens' access to read what the rest of the world can read?

I understand there's a difference between classified documents and other news.  But WikiLeaks didn't hack into the US computers to my knowledge.  A US soldier  got the information and then passed it on.  I still don't understand how WikiLeaks is different from any other media outlet that publishes classified information leaked to them. The US government, to my knowledge, hasn't tried to shut off the New York Times' credit.   And what did they do when the NY Times published that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent?  They tried with the Pentagon Papers, but lost.  Why is WikiLeaks different?  

And even if you think the US should shut down WikiLeaks, how do you justify telling US government employees they can't read the published documents, even at home on their personal computers? 

Someone please tell me what I'm missing here. 

AIFF 2010: Best of the Fest - Wild Hunt Got Stolen

The Wild Hunt was awarded the Golden Oosikar* as the Best Feature in the Anchorage International Film Festival. (I don't agree with the choice, but that's besides the point.)

Stolen was awarded the Golden Oosikar as the Best Documentary. I didn't manage to see it during the Festival, so I was looking for when it was going to play in Best of the Fest.  It wasn't there.  I'm planning a post on my picks for the best films in the various categories, but how can I choose if I can't see the one that won best documentary?  (I'm pleased with some choices, disagree with others.)

Here's the explanation from Rand Thornsley:  There are only eight slots for Best of the Fest.  They have to make difficult choices.  Factors that were considered:

• Audience votes
• Number of times it was shown in the festival

Not only was Stolen missing - it was shown twice and it didn't do well in the audience voting - so was The Wild Hunt which won Best Feature from the judges, for the same reasons.  Exporting Raymond, which was runner up for Audience Choice Award also isn't in the Best of the Fest, though Full Disclosure is.  Both were only screened once.  However, Full Disclosure got Honorable Mention for Documentary both from the judges and from the Audience Choice votes.

Exporting Raymond was a special selection (invited to be screened) while Full Disclosure was submitted and selected as one of the Documentaries in Competition.  (Rand didn't mention this distinction, but it makes sense that submitted films should edge out invited films.)  I'll definitely have more to say about Exporting Raymond and I'm hoping to find a way to see Stolen before I pick my favorite documentaries.  Stolen is about human trafficking in Africa - not a warm and fuzzy subject, but Full Disclosure is also a difficult subject - Marines in Iraq.  But Americans feel more connected to that topic I think.



*The only reference online to Oosikar refers to the awards given at the Anchorage International Film Festival. An oosik, as every Alaskan knows, is the penile bone of a walrus. You can see these Alaskan Oscars in the picture.

AIFF 2010: Best of The Fest - Statehood

It's hard for me to write much of substance about the films I see during the festival.  I need a bit time to digest and time to write.  And then there are more films to see that day so serious comment has to wait.  So I will be commenting on some of the films in the next few weeks.  Last night we saw Empire of Silver and the various short films that won awards.  Tonight we saw Statehood, which got Best of Snowdance Audience Choice Award.

The premier of Statehood was Sunday, but I have to admit that a movie called Statehood didn't sound all that exciting it would have meant a lot more driving back and forth.  I'm glad it won the award, because it is a movie all Alaskans should see - and I hope a lot of school kids will see it over the years.

Laurence Goldin and Joaqlin Estus Before Statehood

Most interesting to me was the tension between the Outside corporations who were extracting Alaska's resources and giving nothing back and the portrayal of them as buying the legislature to keep their sweet deal.  The corporations had most newspapers locked up and attacked anyone who spoke against them - and talked about their great contributions to the territory.
It's easy for most people to get that when it happened 50 years ago, but when their own jobs are on the line today, it's easy to be frightened into supporting the corporations that are giving you a pittance on the dollar for your resources.

Ernest Gruening, Bob Bartlett, and to my surprise, Bob Atwood were the heroes of this movie.  Atwood, a strong Statehood supporter, backed anti-corporation candidates to the territorial legislature in his newspaper, which set up a legislature that backed Statehood and led to the Constitutional Convention.  It also reminded me it's time to reread Alaska history.

This was a surprisingly good film, mixing archival film and interviews with people who were there - Ted Stevens, Tom Steward[t], George Rogers, Katie Hurley, Vic Fischer, and a few more - plus some academic types.  Though my only real criticism of the way the film was made was the modern interviews were so incredibly sharp and detailed that they were pretty unflattering for most of the people and made the contrast between the old and new footage much harsher than necessary.

Here's film maker Laurence Goldin introducing the film.

Morrie? Does copulate mean what I think it does?

"Morrie?  Does copulate mean what I think it does?  In English I mean?"

The speaker is Paul, a precocious 13 year old who talking to his unconventional teacher in a one-room school house in Montana in 1909.  He goes on:

The morning I asked that, he had had a terrible time keeping a straight face.  Between yawns and cups of coffee that would have given Father's a run for its money and trying to prepare for the Department of Public Instruction inspector coming to lop his head off, he was doing his best to administer Latin to me before everyone else showed up for school.  At that hour I was chipper as Chanticleer, which probably was no help to a bleary teacher who had to come an hour early every day to unlock the schoolhouse and light the overhead lamps and stoke up the stove and then face me and my translations.  Morrie hadn't yet uttered a peep of complaint, however, and now he looked more than passingly interested in my questions.  "Dare I ask why you ask?"

"Just wondering," I dabbed my finger onto the open page of the Latin collection of readings he had most recently provided me.  "Besides, it's right here."

Morrie blanched, then scrambled over to my desk to take a look.  "Navem caper copulas manus ferreas injecebamus" he read aloud hastily, then translated with relief. "To caputre the vessel, we throw ropes with grappling irons." The grappling is not that severe in the English form. But look it up."

My book group finished reading The Whistling Season by Ivan Doig.  As a couple people said at our meeting last week, "everyone is so nice."  I had to disagree and pointed out a few characters who made life difficult for Paul and his brothers.  But generally the conflicts are pretty low key.  And this got me to thinking.  Most authors will tell you something like

Without conflict, you don’t have a story. [from Susann Cokal]

And it seems a lot of writers assume that conflict should be CONFLICT!  Doig finds conflict in everyday life and is able to tell a story without terribly much happening in the sense of big dramatic conflict.  Rather we have Morrie's need to answer Paul's question about Latin translation.  And Morrie's concern about the school inspector's visit.

The book starts out with recently widowed Oliver and his three sons around the table.

. . .  Father had a short, sniffing way of laughing, as if anything funny had to prove it to his nose first. 

I glanced up from my geography lessons to discover the newspaper making its way in my direction.  Father's thumb was crimped down onto the heading of the ad like the holder of a divining rod striking water.  "Paul, better see this.  Read it to the multitude."

I did so, Damon and Toby halting what they were at to try to take in those five simple yet confounding words:

Can't Cook But Doesn't Bite.

Meal-making was not a joking matter in our household.  Father, though continued to look pleased as could be and nodded for me to keep reading aloud.

Housekeeping position sought by widow.  Sound morals, exceptional disposition.  No culinary skills, but A-1 in all other household tasks.  Salary negotiable, but must include railroad fare to Montana locality;  first year of peerless care for your home thereby guaranteed.  Respond to Boxholder, Box 19, Lowry Hill Postal Station, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Conflict - how does widower cook for his three sons?  Conflict - should he send transportation money to this unknown potential housekeeper?  There's also a wolf trapper and his son who provide some tension, but basically things are unexciting, but in a way that kept me eager for more.

New York Times book reviewer Sven Birkets invoked David Foster Wallace's questioning whether it was possible today to write without irony.  He concludes:

"The next real literary 'rebels' in this country might well emerge as some weird bunch of anti-rebels, born oglers who dare somehow to back away from ironic watching, who have the childish gall actually to endorse and instantiate single-entendre principles. Who treat of plain old untrendy human troubles and emotions in U.S. life with reverence and conviction."

Birkets suggests Ivan Doig fits the untrendy and reverent criteria.  I'd agree.  I can't recall reading such a low stress novel.  Focusing on everyday tasks offers enough literary conflict if done as well as Doig does it.

Clutter Wars - Let's Paint

J has wanted a new downstairs carpet forever and with guests coming this summer, it's forever has a date.  But if you put down a new carpet, you have to paint first.  She told me it was a law of nature.  The good news is that we had to take out everything that was in the open.  So now my back room is full again as is the room we misleadingly call the greenhouse.






But while I've been blogging about the film festival (I've changed the banner back to What Do I Know? even though we still have a couple more days of Best of the Fest), J has been painting.  (I did a little bit of the cleaning out, taping, and 15 minutes of painting a high tight spot, but some things couples aren't meant to do together.)  She claims to like painting and who am I to disagree? 

It really looks much better, even with things still wrapped up.  We have decisions though now.   Probably time to have a new look.  A more comfortable sofa bed for guests.  Get rid of the stuff that we moved out.  

 The fake brick wall that leaves an air space behind the wood stove looks much better painted white.

Catherine Doss Senungetuk's Retrospective Exhibit

[Update Wed Dec. 15:  Catherine is back in the hospital.  It's not looking very good.  The exhibit is scheduled to open Friday.]

We visited our friends Catherine and Joe Senungetuk the other day.  Catherine's been pretty ill, but is now up and about, though still recovering.  She has a retrospective show - 35 years of her work - opening December 17 at Out North 5:00 - 7:00pm. 

Here's the original painting that the exhibition cards will be made from.






 

                                Joe's been working on this mask to be sent to Nome.  Catherine painted it.










Finally, here's Joe in his living room

AIFF 2010: Awards - Live Blogging Over - Winners Lists

10:31  Best of Fest Schedule - The musicians are playing again and people are talking.  I'm done now.  Congratulations to the winners!

Monday
5:30  -  Empire of Silver
8pm  Best of Mixed Media (Live Action and Animation)

Tuesday
5:30  - Statehood           
8pm  - Full Disclosure with A Life Ascending

Wednesday
5:30  -  The Last Station         
8pm - Journey on the Wild Side

Thursday
5:30  -  Anatomy of Vince Guaraldi         
8pm  The Beekeepers and Quick Freeze Winners

10:23

 2010 Audience Choice Awards -  Chosen by audience - over 55 minute films
Documentary -
3rd Place - Brian Palmer - Full Disclosure
2nd place - Exporting Raymond
 1st Place Vince Guaraldi

Best Narrative
3rd Choice -  Drummond Will
2nd Choice - Last Station
1st Choice - Empire of Silver

Snowdance
3rd - Journey Along the Wild Coast
2nd - Beekeepers
1st - Statehood


10:17  Quick Freeze - these were five day films made
Runner Up -  The Clapper
Winner - Dear Self in Ten Years


10:11 Features
Honorable Mention - The Empire of Silver
Runner Up - The Drummond Will
Winner - The Wild Hunt

10:05pm
Snow Dance
Honorable Mention - Portrait of Nikolai
Runner Up - Beekeepers
Winner - Native Time




Documentaries

Honorable Mention - Full Disclosure
Runner Up - Anatomy of Vince Guaraldi
Winner - Stolen

Christian and Trevor Tyler film makers - European Son

9:55pm - starting up again some pics from the break

9:26 - 15 minute break


9:24pm

Best Animation -
Honorable Mention - Millhaven
Runner Up - Not Over Easy
Winner - Ode To a Post it Note  


9:15 John has his pants back on. Now shorts - Chuck and Rich
Shorts
Honrable Mention - European Son
Runner Up - Noble Savage
Winner - Caron



9:10  Supershorts - John is just wearing his shorts  - Jamie is now up there.  
 Three finalists - Canada - Nuit Blanche
Salut and

Honorable mention;  Salut - Jerry Rath
2nd Place  -  Josh Turner - The Foal
Winner  - Nuit Blanche


9:02  Rand is thanking the sponsors and the volunteers.  Tony and Michele just joined rand on the stage.






8:52 - John's talking 




8:47  John - right - is now on stage as MC.

Here's a picture I took a few minutes ago of the Golden Oosikar awards.







8:42 - We're watching Neil Mansfield's The Owl in the Snow.  


8:22pm It's still empty inside as the musicians are practicing great blues and outside the crowd is waiting.

This is not going to start on time.  It will take longer than that for people to find their seats.  I better move up front and go from plug in to battery.

Rand reserving seats for film makers

7:52pm  The Bear Tooth is empty except for people setting up.

40 minutes to go.  For a minute I thought there might not be any live blogging because I could get wifi, but it wasn't connected.  But Jason (I think his name was Jason) got it going and there's even a back up wifi just in case.

Musicians setting up and testing sound

Here's the list of the films of competition in each category.  I've linked the animation - you can see clips from them - and the features.  I haven't seen all the films in any category.  The way they were scheduled made it pretty difficult unless you focused on just one or two categories.  

I'll use this list as the basis and then I'll be updating this as awards are announced. So just keep checking this post starting at about 8:45 Alaska time tonight.   At the bottom of the list of films in competition I have an updated version of an older post on My Criteria for aGood Movie.

Super Shorts

Eulogy Maker*  Leslie Langee USA
The Foal*  Josh Tanner Australia
In That Moment*  Shripriya Mahesh  USA
Nuit Blanche*  Arev Manoukian  Canada
Run Granny Run!*  Nikolaus von Uthmann  Germany
Salut*  Jerry Rapp  USA
The Wasp and the Caterpillar*  Daniel Fazio  UK/Italy

Shorts

Caron* Pierre Zandrowicz France
European Son* Tyler Zelinsky USA 
King Eternal* Ori Guendelman USA
Leather* James Boldiston Australia
The Long Lonely Walk*
The Noble Savage* Wesley Wingo USA
White Other* Dan Hartley

Animation

The Arctic Circle* Kevin Parry Canada
B/W Races* Jacopo Martinoni Italy
Millhaven*  Bartek Kulas Poland  
Not Over Easy* Jordan Canning Canada
Ode to a Post-It Note* Jeff Chiba Stearns Canada
Ping* Jason Oshman USA
The Wonder Hospital*   Beomsik Shimbe Shim USA




Documentary

The Anatomy of Vince Guaraldi* Andrew Thomas USA
Ed Hardy: Tattoo The World* Emiko Omori USA
Full Disclosure* Brian Palmer USA/Various
Keiko: The Untold Story* Theresa Demarest USA
My Perestroika* Robin Hessman UK/Russian Federation
She Wore Silver Wings* Devin Scott USA
Stolen* Violeta Ayala Daniel Fallshaw Australia/USA


Snowdance

The Beekeepers*  Bryant Mainord  USA (AK)
MUSH: The Movie*  Alex Stein  USA (AK)
Native Time*  Sean Morris  USA (AK)
Parlez-Vous Eyak*  Laura Bliss Spaan  USA (AK)
A Portrait of Nikolai* Youth of Nikolai  USA (AK)
Rain Power*  Hannah Guggenheim  USA (AK)
The Yup’ik Way* Beth Edwards USA (AK)


Feature

Bai Yin Di Guo [Empire of Silver]	Christina Shu-hwa Yao	China
The Drummond Will	Alan Butterworth	UK
Hello Lonesome	Adam Reid	USA
Karma Calling	Sarba Das	USA
Son Istasyon [Last Station]	Ogulcan Kirca	Turkey
The Temptation of St. Tony	Veiko Õunpuu	Estonia
The Wild Hunt	Alexandre Franchi	Canada

Quick Freeze








Best of Fest








So what were my criteria? There are several factors. (This is from 2007 so the movie references are to films in that year's festival.)

• Technical Quality A continuum from.. shaky...no problems..very good..innovative. Some might have a combination of more than one of these which makes it harder to judge. Clearly Anonymous and I Have Seen the Future impressed me with their innovative technical styles.

• Content - There's a vague continuum from:
• Negative/disrespectful ...Boring...good story....originality...currency...impact
• I gave my only really negative review to The Dalai Lama's Cat because I thought it was a very negative and disrespectful portrayal. That doesn't mean a film can't be critical - I gave Taxi to the Dark Side lots of credit for being critical of the Defense Department's use of torture. But they provided lots of evidence. The Cat filmmakers began with what appears to be a bogus story about a cat, knew apparently little or nothing about the Dalai Lama or the Tibetan people, and then used Tibet, its people, and its holy shrines as the props for their ethnocentric humor. They used the Dalai Lama's name to sell their picture. It was simply rude and disrespectful to get a laugh and sell their movie. This is not about being politically correct. If you drop a kid on his head for laughs (which they did in the movie) that's not acceptable in my value system. Most depressing was how many people did laugh.
• Content is probably the most variable issue, since what interests me may not interest you. I thought Prize of the Pole and Taxi to the Dark Side both covered important social/political issues well, but that Taxi's was focused on a more current issue and had potentially more impact.
• Friends thought No Place Like Home was awful. I thought it had some editing problems, but there were a lot of things in there that I enjoyed.

• Use of Medium. Movies combine sight and sound and movement. The best movies are those that take advantage of the medium and tell their stories in ways that you couldn't tell it orally, in a book, etc.

• Whole Package. Even with weaknesses here and there, a film could pull it off by doing some things so well that the problems don't really matter.  Just like parts of a face, individually, might be a little off, all together the face can be beautiful. So the same is true for the movie.
  
  Erik Knudsen said this year (2010) that a good movie is one that moves you one that reaches you. I think that's mostly what I mean by the whole package.
  
  So, ultimately, everyone will have different best movies.