By MCN Editor editor@moviecitynews.com

Reykjavik Int’l Film Festival 2011 Awards

New Best Icelandic Short Film Award established to honor Thor Vilhjálmsson

Record festival attendance nears 27,000 admissions

THE GOLDEN PUFFIN

Discovery Award

Russian director Angelina Nikonova´s film TWILIGHT PORTRAIT (Portret V Sumerkakh) which tells a story of revenge between a social worker and a militia man against the modern day backdrop of a Russia ridden with social conflict.

Jury Statement

“For the extremely inspired use of cinematic language and storytelling while depicting an intriguing and provocative subject matter with unsettling, realist sensibility.”

Special Jury Mention:

Italian director Andrea Segre’s SHUN LI AND THE POET (Io Sono Li)

“For the poetry and grace employed in treating the subject of the
integration (or lack of integration) of immigrants in western society.”

Norwegian director Joachim Trier’s OSLO, 31. AUGUST

“For the strong demonstration of directorial skills when dealing with a
complicated and sensitive subject. “

First and second films are eligible.

The jury is led by Danish actor Ulrich Thomsen, and includes Tudor Giurgiu, Director of the Transilvanian International Film Festival and Irene Bignardi, journalist Il Messaggero (Rome).

FIPRESCI AWARD

International Critic’s Award

Icelandic director Rúnar Rúnarsson´s VOLCANO (Eldfjall).

Jury Statement

“For the sensitive yet unsentimental portrayal, built on powerful
acting, of themes that are not usually the focus of filmmaking:
aging with dignity in an intimate relationship, dealing with severe
illness, caring and dying.”

Films from the New Visions program are eligible.

On the jury are Alison Elizabeth Frank, Ph.D. from the University of Oxford (England); Nicole Santé, Chair of Dutch Board of Film Journalists (Holland) and Susanne Schütz, Arts Editor Rheinpfalz (Germany).

THE CHURCH OF ICELAND AWARD

Icelandic director Rúnar Rúnarsson´s VOLCANO (Eldfjall), a love story that has transcended the years and now confronts the final chapter.

The Church of Iceland film award is presented for the sixth time this year.

Jury Statement

“Volcano is a realistic film, carried by a strong story, excellent
acting and confident direction.

Volcano is a film about love in all of its diversity. It shows the
intimacy and pleasure of lovers. It shows responsible and sacrifical
love. Mesmerizing close-ups soften a harsh man and connect the
audience and the protagonist.

Volcano is a film about family, about interaction that is both broken
and whole. It shows despair, it mediates hope. It shows use closeness
and annoyance, warmth and coldness, joy and pain.

Volcano is a film about growing old and reminds us of the human need
for care and presence.

Volcano is a film that leaves the viewer with questions and compels a
conversation.”

Special Jury mention:

Brazilian director Julia Marat’s STORIES THAT ONLY EXIST WHEN REMEMBERED (Historias Que Só Existem Quando Lembradas) is a well made and mesmerizing film about closeness and community. It introduces us to a group of people who gather to break bread in church and at the table.
It is a unique testament to slow, calm society and stands as a
witness against the stressed existence of our times.“

First and second films are eligible, from the New Visions category.

On the jury are Sr. Árni Svanur Daníelsson, (Deus Ex Cinema); Sr. Elín Hrund Kristjánsdóttir (Deus Ex Cinema, pastor at Reykhólar) and Guðni Mar Harðarson (pastor at Lindakirkja Church).

RIFF AUDIENCE AWARD

Most Popular Film Award

Finnish director Aki Kaurismaki’s film LE HAVRE which is a romantic tale of the triumph of the human spirit as a young African illegal immigrant passes through the fabled port city on his way to London.

Presented by Bjarni Guðmundsson, managing director of the National Broadcasting Company of Iceland, RÚV.

Audience award is tabulated by using admissions and taking into account the size of the screening room and the number of screenings.

RIFF ENVIRONMENTAL AWARD

Irish director’s Risteard Ó Domhnaill’s THE PIPE, a story of a small Irish community divided by the prospect of a oil pipeline that will bring economic gains but also destroy their way of life.

Jury Statement

“Risteard Ó Domhnail’s way of telling the story is powerful, yet simple. It contains all the good elements of a classic cinema. In the spirit of Cinema Verité he brings forth few but strong characters to lead the story forward, the style is effortless and clear. Although a local story from a remote area it speaks to us in a bigger context.The Pipe is a film that talks to our times and has a rendezvous with the future. ”

Special Jury Mention:

“Eco Pirate: The Paul Watson Story is an epic tale of a one man’s struggle against the exploitation of the oceans, and at the same time provides a unique observation of four decades of the environmental movement Greenpeace. The film is a traditional documentary that deals with its subject matter with profound care, well balanced structure and historical subplots”

Films from the Greendocs program are eligible.

On the jury are Hrönn Kristinsdóttir, producer; Ósk Vilhjámsdóttir, artist and Þorfinnur Guðnason, filmmaker.

BEST ICELANDIC SHORT FILM

Börkur Sigthorsson’s SKAÐI (Come To Harm)

Special Jury Mention:

Haukur M. Hrafnsson’s ÓSÝNILEG MÆRI (Invisible Border).

Films from the Icelandic Panorama are eligible.

The award is accompanied by the first grant from the Thor Vilhjalmsson Fund, founded by RIFF and the Icelandic Society of Filmmakers to honor the memory of renowned author Thor Vilhjálmsson.

The grant is 200,000 ÍSK line of credit with Iceland Express to fly anywhere in the world and a 150,000 ÍSK credit at the famed Eymundsson bookstores.

Jury: Árni Ólafur Ásgeirsson, director; Ásgeir H. Ingólfsson, critic and Silja Hauksdóttir, director.

– 30 –

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