By Leonard Klady Klady@moviecitynews.com

The Confessions of a Film Junkie: The Weekend

There’s something a bit daunting about the fact that two of the most acclaimed films coming into the Toronto International Film Festival are titled Hunger and Blindness. Both premiered at Cannes withBlindness receiving the prestigious opening night slot and Hungerwinning the Camera d’or award for best first feature.

I prefer Blindness, at least the type one encounters cinematically. Based upon the novel by Jose Saramago and directed byFernando Meirelles it’s a contemporary allegory about the breakdown of society. Set in an unnamed city, it begins with a man suddenly going blind though a subsequent analysis cannot account for the cause. However, in short order it snowballs into an epidemic and the “blind” are put into camps that are more like leper colonies than rehab centers.

Apart from guards whose job is to shoot anyone attempting escape, they are on their own and briefly stated their society evolves into a Lord of the Flies environment. What’s shown of the human condition is hard to take but the conclusion (when this virus effects virtually everyone) at least extends a shred of hope that isn’t simply a pretty bow.

Hunger focuses on the Irish prison hunger strike led by Bobby Sands in 1981. The depiction of the squalor these predominantly political prisoners live in and the endless beatings they undergo from jailers is vividly and unflinchingly portrayed. Written and directed by the acclaimed installation artistSteve McQueen, it’s an accomplished first film and, at the same time, suffers from a new filmmaker’s inexperience behind the lens.

The filmmaker has a tendency to provide more information than the audience requires. He also gives his film a false start; introducing Sands 20 minutes into the film after setting up several other characters that one assumes (incorrectly) will have a central role in the drama. McQueen – one suspects coming from a different medium – wants to apply other narrative precepts but his tendency to set up situations that have no pay off proves to be more frustrating than innovative at times.

Hunger as well as Blindness are among the fortunate films that have American distribution. The festival is well underway and news of a sale of any unencumbered movie regardless of size has yet to occur. There have been rumors of interest in several titles but whether the math or the passion is absent remains to be seen.

One veteran of the acquisitions community told me that while he was always interested in finding new, exploitable films, his primary intent in Toronto was to sell the movies he already had in his larder. He said the traditional bull market one associates with Toronto had shifted into a bear market and didn’t expect that to change in the foreseeable future.

Still, Monday affords premieres of a couple of films that are anticipated as potential and significant sales items. The Wrestler stars Mickey Rourke in a comeback performance (he received actor honors at the recently concluded Venice fest) of a man trying to reconnect with his daughter and learning that if he goes back into the ring in his present physical condition, he will likely die. The word coming back from the Lido is that it’s a powerful albeit downbeat drama.

The other newbie is Che, Steven Soderbergh’s two-part portrait of the bygone revolutionary (and coincidently the recipient of best actor honors for Benecio del Toro in its Cannes debut). Rumors are that the filmmaker has done considerable tinkering since the initial screening though the festival brochure lists a running time (262 mins.) that corresponds to the earlier festival incarnation. So, gets some sleep and report back tomorrow.

– Leonard Klady

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon