By Leonard Klady Klady@moviecitynews.com

Confessions Of A Film Festival Junkie: Day Two

tiffThe Toronto International Film Festival opening day announcement was all about the escalators not working at the Scotiabank Theaters. Film festivals are not all about the art of cinema. The Scotiabank complex has 18 screens. The climb is the equivalent of four flights and the grade is as severe as the London Underground’s. I wondered why they simply didn’t reverse the working escalator and discovered they couldn’t because the “up” escalator operates on two motors and the “down” only has a single motor. Even if this is resolved overnight, it still has to be approved by a city inspector and I’m told there’s an epidemic of broken escalators in the city.

I broke with a long-standing tradition of starting my first day with the Cannes Palme d’or winner. I couldn’t resist the allure of Manchester by the Sea, by playwright-turned-writer-director Kenneth Lonergan that Sundance viewers touted as an Oscar favorite. Lonergan’s third directorial outing stars Casey Affleck as a hardscrabble, down-on-his-luck working-class guy who winds up as the guardian of his teenage nephew. Despite the obvious gravitas, it sounds like the setup for a sitcom. It isn’t, although the film wouldn’t have suffered from more levity. It is emotionally potent, expertly crafted and Affleck and newcomer Lucas Hedges are standout, but it’s premature to be talking Oscar glory.

The one film that everyone seems to love is Toni Erdmann, Germany’s official Oscar submission. The broad strokes: Ines, a senior member of a global consulting firm, stationed in Bucharest, gets a surprise visit from her father, a downbeat, erratic man with a devilish twinkle. Matters go off track when he inveigles his way into Ines’ social life, “disguised” in a dark wig and fake teeth and introduces himself as the title character. The potential for mayhem is rife and there’s plenty of hilarity. But this breakout film by Maren Ade has so many other assets; the business stuff is tense, silly and credible and the introduction of this wild card character allows for a heightened sense of, well, everything. It is a true original.

One of the great things about TIFF and other great film showcases is the chance to go around the world and not simply savor other cultures but get a bit of history and perspective. So far I’ve touched down in the Czech Republic (We Are Never Alone), Spain (Julieta) and Bulgaria (Godless).

Nigeria is this year’s festival spotlight, showcasing eight recent features. “Nollywood” produces hundreds of films annually on budgets usually under $100,000, historically short on production values but high on energy. More ambitious productions have been mounted in the past five years, and one I caught, 76, plumbed the resources of their film industry. Set in 1976, it focuses on an army officer who finds himself in the shadow of suspicion after an attempted military coup, despite not taking part of it. It’s a fascinating moment in history, and the screenplay by Emmanuel Okomanyi provides personal notes that are effective.

The Age of Shadows, South Korea’s Oscar submission, is similar. Koreans love their history although I’m haven’t seen earlier attempts chronicling the 1920s when it was under Japanese rule. The film is a cat’s cradle of rebels, spies, traitors and the like; stylish and slick and surprisingly sentimental in an old-fashioned way that 76 managed to sidestep.

The Magnificent Seven deserves a mention as the official opening night attraction. Its choice had the patron audience in a collective head scratch, but these elders benefited from growing up on the original. It’s hard to figure how the producers got away with no writing credit to the 1960 edition, as well as the exclusion of Elmer Bernstein’s theme music until the end of the movie.

 

 

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