The Films of the Film Festival
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Outrageous Love Affairs happen and evidently they did in "Pittsburgh"
This film is based on a true story about a somewhat successful actor that finds his heart stolen by a Canadian actress thirty years his younger whom has visa problems. Without the help of someone in the USA, Catherine must return home to Canada. Determined to give way to his heart over his head, the actor played by Jeff Goldblum, sets his career aside to assure Catherine a job with hopes of pure romance as well.
It is a film about foolishness and yet there is so little foolishness in it when one realizes love and being in love can be a life's pursuit worth seeking. In this film, the actor sets aside a $4 million role in a film with wild abandon only to enlist every available film to take over a remake of "The Music Man" of which the love of his life will star as well. The movie is being filmed in his hometown Pittsburgh, so what could go wrong? After all he is an accomplished actor of which the movie maker should be grateful to have him. Well, he is put through a trial of a variety of talents and what results is a very funny film.
The very oddest parody of this film is that it lacks a distributor in the USA and it's actual audience doesn't even know it exists. The theme to my visit to The Traverse Film Festival would prove to be the understanding of the very plight of this delightful film. It would seem as though the film industry highly descriminates against independant film producers to 'corner' every available dollar into their 'ready cash' till. In fact, as the days wore on it became very obvious to me that Hollywood, which I often refer to as Hollyweed, is simply that. A weed among the crop of great films available that the American Public never sees.
It is a film about foolishness and yet there is so little foolishness in it when one realizes love and being in love can be a life's pursuit worth seeking. In this film, the actor sets aside a $4 million role in a film with wild abandon only to enlist every available film to take over a remake of "The Music Man" of which the love of his life will star as well. The movie is being filmed in his hometown Pittsburgh, so what could go wrong? After all he is an accomplished actor of which the movie maker should be grateful to have him. Well, he is put through a trial of a variety of talents and what results is a very funny film.
The very oddest parody of this film is that it lacks a distributor in the USA and it's actual audience doesn't even know it exists. The theme to my visit to The Traverse Film Festival would prove to be the understanding of the very plight of this delightful film. It would seem as though the film industry highly descriminates against independant film producers to 'corner' every available dollar into their 'ready cash' till. In fact, as the days wore on it became very obvious to me that Hollywood, which I often refer to as Hollyweed, is simply that. A weed among the crop of great films available that the American Public never sees.
Tuesday Morning at 10 AM was a surprise
Evidently, the surprise was not surprising to the panel of Malcolm McDowell, Jeff Daniels, Terry George and Ari Emanuel. They are all accomplished professionals whom openly discussed 'the film industry.' The art of film. The difficulty in making good films.
Much to their credit they did not 'diss' Hollywood so much as embrace it but with a reality of living within an industry that likes to rubber stamp emotion into every film to guarantee hefty profits. These long standing film professionals brought light to the subject of emotional competency in film making. Their perspective is not radical. It has been developed and well honed over decades of dedication to 'the art' of translating ideas to a viewing screen. Not an easy task.
The discussion opened up coming to understand how closely these independant filmmakers were related in their 'mission' of bringing meaningful film to the public.
Ari Emanuel is Michael's agent. He didn't have to 'take on' the Disney Film Machine when they censored Fahrenheit 911 realizing there was peril in 'taking a stand to back Michael's artistic insight and commitment;' but; he did. Ari Emanuel is a great guy. He does not walk in the shadows of Michael but walks with him. His insight along with the light-hearted approach of the other members of the panel proved to be a 'fly on the wall' experience I'll sincerely value all my life. They made an impression on me and I hope that means something to them as I know it does to Michael Moore.
The article that broke the news to the world about the beginnings of the Bush Censorship Ambitions appeared in The New York Times. Front page. It was Ari Emanuel that brought the news to The New York Times. A pure act of bravery considering his dependence of acceptance by the industry he makes his living.
Disney Is Blocking Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
By JIM RUTENBERG (NYT) 9
89 words
Published: May 5, 2004
WASHINGTON, May 4 - The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.
The film, ''Fahrenheit 911,'' links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis -- including the family of Osama bin Laden -- and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.
Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.
In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for Miramax, said: ''We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably.''
But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said.
''We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax,'' said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. ''That decision stands.''
Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson's company, backed out.
Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.
''Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him,'' Mr. Emanuel said. ''He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved.''
Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel.
A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many.
''It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle,'' this executive said.
Miramax is free to seek another distributor in North America, but such a deal would force it to share profits and be a blow to Harvey Weinstein, a big donor to Democrats.
Mr. Moore, who will present the film at the Cannes film festival this month, criticized Disney's decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, ''At some point the question has to be asked, 'Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' ''
Mr. Moore's films, like ''Roger and Me'' and ''Bowling for Columbine,'' are often a political lightning rod, as Mr. Moore sets out to skewer what he says are the misguided priorities of conservatives and big business. They have also often performed well at the box office. His most recent movie, ''Bowling for Columbine,'' took in about $22 million in North America for United Artists. His books, like ''Stupid White Men,'' a jeremiad against the Bush administration that has sold more than a million copies, have also been lucrative.
Mr. Moore does not disagree that ''Fahrenheit 911'' is highly charged, but he took issue with the description of it as partisan. ''If this is partisan in any way it is partisan on the side of the poor and working people in this country who provide fodder for this war machine,'' he said.
Mr. Moore said the film describes financial connections between the Bush family and its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families that go back three decades. He said it closely explores the government's role in the evacuation of relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States immediately after the 2001 attacks. The film includes comments from American soldiers on the ground in Iraq expressing disillusionment with the war, he said.
Mr. Moore once planned to produce the film with Mr. Gibson's company, but ''the project wasn't right for Icon,'' said Alan Nierob, an Icon spokesman, adding that the decision had nothing to do with politics.
Miramax stepped in immediately. The company had distributed Mr. Moore's 1997 film, ''The Big One.'' In return for providing most of the new film's $6 million budget, Miramax was positioned to distribute it.
While Disney's objections were made clear early on, one executive said the Miramax leadership hoped it would be able to prevail upon Disney to sign off on distribution, which would ideally happen this summer, before the election and when political interest is high.
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F40B13FA35590C768CDDAC0894DC404482
The bravery across the board here cannot be realized enough, especially when one considers the determined 'Freedom of Speech' the New York Times continues to celebrate and continues to be battered with by this Washington administration, House and Senate. I believe rarely in the history of this newsprint has it ever experienced such rough times. This article was the beginning salvos of the cry of our Constitution's Fore Fathers. My loyality. But. Not my silence.
Much to their credit they did not 'diss' Hollywood so much as embrace it but with a reality of living within an industry that likes to rubber stamp emotion into every film to guarantee hefty profits. These long standing film professionals brought light to the subject of emotional competency in film making. Their perspective is not radical. It has been developed and well honed over decades of dedication to 'the art' of translating ideas to a viewing screen. Not an easy task.
The panel was light hearted. It began after Michael Moore had given the keynote address to the festival. He dearly loves this industry. Michael is accepted among the film directors and producers at this festival whom's films have proven to be some of the most profound ever made. Their commitment to creating 'meaningful' film for a viewing audience cannot be understated. They don't like to waste their time 'making money' so much as making impressions. Rarely did I feel the same at the conclusion of any of the films of this festival and it is understandably clear as to why. These men and women are insightful to the skills they bring but mostly insightful to the human experience. They understand the power of their media, their culture but they also have very high ethical standards to their viewers. They respect the dollars a consumer pays to see a film, hoping to impart a reality about life the viewer has yet to experience.
Michael Moore entered the public scrutiny with his film Fahrenheit 911, which would prove to be an opening salvo of conscious censorship by the American Film Industy. Fahrenheit was not Michael's first film. He was already an accomplished documentarian with an award winning film, "Bowling for Columbine" (click on) under his belt. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, Fahrenheit 911 is a highly patriotic film. Most of Michael's work is. Now I said patriotic, not 'flag waving nationalism.' There is a huge difference. When one boils down the content of Michael's work it is based in love of country, love of citizens and the dismantling of mind speak that brings injustice and tragedy to the average American. He is a brave man and artist. It is that quality that sets him among the independant filmmakers of this festival and why many people love him, his work and his commitment beyond his work to the very subjects of his films. Many of his books such as "Roger and Me" or "Dude, Where’s My Country?" (click on) have been an imputus for average Americans to get in touch with their own living reality. Don't take my word for it, at nearly every website that commemorates Michael's work as the one of Bowling for Columbine there is a link to 'how to take action' to empower the reader or viewer. Michael is a phenomina that touches lives on a daily basis. His 'style' of outreach is respected among his piers.The discussion opened up coming to understand how closely these independant filmmakers were related in their 'mission' of bringing meaningful film to the public.
Ari Emanuel is Michael's agent. He didn't have to 'take on' the Disney Film Machine when they censored Fahrenheit 911 realizing there was peril in 'taking a stand to back Michael's artistic insight and commitment;' but; he did. Ari Emanuel is a great guy. He does not walk in the shadows of Michael but walks with him. His insight along with the light-hearted approach of the other members of the panel proved to be a 'fly on the wall' experience I'll sincerely value all my life. They made an impression on me and I hope that means something to them as I know it does to Michael Moore.
The article that broke the news to the world about the beginnings of the Bush Censorship Ambitions appeared in The New York Times. Front page. It was Ari Emanuel that brought the news to The New York Times. A pure act of bravery considering his dependence of acceptance by the industry he makes his living.
Disney Is Blocking Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
By JIM RUTENBERG (NYT) 9
89 words
Published: May 5, 2004
WASHINGTON, May 4 - The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.
The film, ''Fahrenheit 911,'' links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis -- including the family of Osama bin Laden -- and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.
Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.
In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for Miramax, said: ''We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably.''
But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said.
''We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax,'' said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. ''That decision stands.''
Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson's company, backed out.
Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.
''Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him,'' Mr. Emanuel said. ''He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved.''
Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel.
A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many.
''It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle,'' this executive said.
Miramax is free to seek another distributor in North America, but such a deal would force it to share profits and be a blow to Harvey Weinstein, a big donor to Democrats.
Mr. Moore, who will present the film at the Cannes film festival this month, criticized Disney's decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, ''At some point the question has to be asked, 'Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' ''
Mr. Moore's films, like ''Roger and Me'' and ''Bowling for Columbine,'' are often a political lightning rod, as Mr. Moore sets out to skewer what he says are the misguided priorities of conservatives and big business. They have also often performed well at the box office. His most recent movie, ''Bowling for Columbine,'' took in about $22 million in North America for United Artists. His books, like ''Stupid White Men,'' a jeremiad against the Bush administration that has sold more than a million copies, have also been lucrative.
Mr. Moore does not disagree that ''Fahrenheit 911'' is highly charged, but he took issue with the description of it as partisan. ''If this is partisan in any way it is partisan on the side of the poor and working people in this country who provide fodder for this war machine,'' he said.
Mr. Moore said the film describes financial connections between the Bush family and its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families that go back three decades. He said it closely explores the government's role in the evacuation of relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States immediately after the 2001 attacks. The film includes comments from American soldiers on the ground in Iraq expressing disillusionment with the war, he said.
Mr. Moore once planned to produce the film with Mr. Gibson's company, but ''the project wasn't right for Icon,'' said Alan Nierob, an Icon spokesman, adding that the decision had nothing to do with politics.
Miramax stepped in immediately. The company had distributed Mr. Moore's 1997 film, ''The Big One.'' In return for providing most of the new film's $6 million budget, Miramax was positioned to distribute it.
While Disney's objections were made clear early on, one executive said the Miramax leadership hoped it would be able to prevail upon Disney to sign off on distribution, which would ideally happen this summer, before the election and when political interest is high.
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F40B13FA35590C768CDDAC0894DC404482
The bravery across the board here cannot be realized enough, especially when one considers the determined 'Freedom of Speech' the New York Times continues to celebrate and continues to be battered with by this Washington administration, House and Senate. I believe rarely in the history of this newsprint has it ever experienced such rough times. This article was the beginning salvos of the cry of our Constitution's Fore Fathers. My loyality. But. Not my silence.
Iron Island
This Iranian film would prove to be the most charming of all the films I watched. There was no blood filled scenes anywhere. It is completely translatable into the American experience. The human emotion that pervades this film is common experience regardless the alien patriarchial authoritarianism of it's community leader called affectionately 'The Captain.'
This community of Muslim Iranians (I am not sure there is any other religion beside Muslim in Iran, but, I am taking no chances.) that numbers somewhat around 75 members literally lives on an abandoned oil tanker. The 'boat' ran aground and was abandoned by the company that owned it only to have it coveted later by a metal salvage company which brings the turning point to the community.
I simply loved this film. It has profound implications in bridging the void of cultures as it exists today. As is true with many of the films screened during this festival, reading is fundamental. The subtitles would also serve any hearing impared that came to view these screenings. A service not found in film theaters either. Think about it.
Iron Island has an intriguing plot of community and resourcefulness, loyality and descency, pride and commitment. Not wanting to give the 'story line' away or the ending, I will say this; the dimension of filmmaking is impressive.
Besides the main story and it's crisis there is a blending of charm and culture that arises in conflict among members of the community and the greater society. Within the primary story lies 'character plots.' One of those plots involves a Romeo and Juliet story line of star crossed lovers which brings extreme focus to the commitment of Muslim fathers to preserve their daughter's honor and hence community respect in maintaining their virgin status. Of course, no different than in the USA, the daughters could not care less about being a virgin, but, we can always honorably chalk that up to the desire to procreate. HORMONES.
Another really charming character plot is with a young boy affectionately known as 'Small Fish.' He seeks to define his life by saving small fish from being demised in places they grew but would not be able to get out of when fully grown. There is a 'hatch' within the oil tanker that houses a hatchery of small fish doomed to die as large fish with little resources within that pool to sustain them.
All these plots leave questions rather than answers at the end of this film. I found myself wanting to see the sequel to the fate of the community, the star crossed lovers and Small Fish. So much did I want my questions answered I sincerely believed a weekly half hour program would best serve my interest in this film.
This community of Muslim Iranians (I am not sure there is any other religion beside Muslim in Iran, but, I am taking no chances.) that numbers somewhat around 75 members literally lives on an abandoned oil tanker. The 'boat' ran aground and was abandoned by the company that owned it only to have it coveted later by a metal salvage company which brings the turning point to the community.
I simply loved this film. It has profound implications in bridging the void of cultures as it exists today. As is true with many of the films screened during this festival, reading is fundamental. The subtitles would also serve any hearing impared that came to view these screenings. A service not found in film theaters either. Think about it.
Iron Island has an intriguing plot of community and resourcefulness, loyality and descency, pride and commitment. Not wanting to give the 'story line' away or the ending, I will say this; the dimension of filmmaking is impressive.
Besides the main story and it's crisis there is a blending of charm and culture that arises in conflict among members of the community and the greater society. Within the primary story lies 'character plots.' One of those plots involves a Romeo and Juliet story line of star crossed lovers which brings extreme focus to the commitment of Muslim fathers to preserve their daughter's honor and hence community respect in maintaining their virgin status. Of course, no different than in the USA, the daughters could not care less about being a virgin, but, we can always honorably chalk that up to the desire to procreate. HORMONES.
Another really charming character plot is with a young boy affectionately known as 'Small Fish.' He seeks to define his life by saving small fish from being demised in places they grew but would not be able to get out of when fully grown. There is a 'hatch' within the oil tanker that houses a hatchery of small fish doomed to die as large fish with little resources within that pool to sustain them.
All these plots leave questions rather than answers at the end of this film. I found myself wanting to see the sequel to the fate of the community, the star crossed lovers and Small Fish. So much did I want my questions answered I sincerely believed a weekly half hour program would best serve my interest in this film.
The Beauty Academy of Kabul
This was still another great film I was treated to by the organizers of this film festival. It was charming to realize women whom came to the USA as immigrants leaving behind the Taliban never lost their love of their homeland. In expressing that love they returned as soon as reasonably possible to Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban. They brought with them the greatest gift they could to their piers. That gift would be the full expression of woman, in a context of female sexuality, hence, 'the beauty parlor experience.'
The most indomitable mentor of the group lived completely in denial of the war, fighting and daily danger of her own life. Her focus was on the beauty academy, it's participants and the 'product' that would carry with it great hopes of the liberation of Afghanistan women. The product was not a salable commodity. It was not hair spray or hair condition, but, the graduates of the academy itself. She was magnificent and none of the academy's mentor/instructors ever settled for less than perfection of it's graduates.
It was a perilous journey with the women that would be the students. They mounted incredible odds to become beauty academy graduates. They found time somewhere in households without modern day conveniences to attend classes and learn a skill. This by the way is not uncommon to the experience of American women even with modern day conveniences. The overwhelming role of 'Super woman/Super mom' to maintain relationships, families, household responsibilities and love of children while seeking self expression and many times economic security in pursuit of career all at the same time, is something easily common place to both sides of this Afghan/American accomplishment.
This film as well leaves the viewer wondering, although not necessarily as a sequel, to the success of the graduates and the continued career choices of it's mentors/instructors. Considering today in Afghanistan there is a resurgence of Taliban now that the Brits and NATO have taken over the demise of al Qaeda following the London bombings, I was left with concern for those in the film rather than sustained joy. At the end of this film I felt a paradox and never before that moment had I realized how profoundly the current administration and legislature in DC had failed these people. At the time this film was made there was profound hope that was supposed to translate a permanence of change that obviously was not obtained due to the derailment of the American military to Iraq. We have lost far more than a chance to end al Qaeda in Afghanistan, we may have very well lost the hopes the Afghanistan people placed in the USA at the beginnings of the invasion.
The most indomitable mentor of the group lived completely in denial of the war, fighting and daily danger of her own life. Her focus was on the beauty academy, it's participants and the 'product' that would carry with it great hopes of the liberation of Afghanistan women. The product was not a salable commodity. It was not hair spray or hair condition, but, the graduates of the academy itself. She was magnificent and none of the academy's mentor/instructors ever settled for less than perfection of it's graduates.
It was a perilous journey with the women that would be the students. They mounted incredible odds to become beauty academy graduates. They found time somewhere in households without modern day conveniences to attend classes and learn a skill. This by the way is not uncommon to the experience of American women even with modern day conveniences. The overwhelming role of 'Super woman/Super mom' to maintain relationships, families, household responsibilities and love of children while seeking self expression and many times economic security in pursuit of career all at the same time, is something easily common place to both sides of this Afghan/American accomplishment.
This film as well leaves the viewer wondering, although not necessarily as a sequel, to the success of the graduates and the continued career choices of it's mentors/instructors. Considering today in Afghanistan there is a resurgence of Taliban now that the Brits and NATO have taken over the demise of al Qaeda following the London bombings, I was left with concern for those in the film rather than sustained joy. At the end of this film I felt a paradox and never before that moment had I realized how profoundly the current administration and legislature in DC had failed these people. At the time this film was made there was profound hope that was supposed to translate a permanence of change that obviously was not obtained due to the derailment of the American military to Iraq. We have lost far more than a chance to end al Qaeda in Afghanistan, we may have very well lost the hopes the Afghanistan people placed in the USA at the beginnings of the invasion.
Some Mother's Son
Terry George.
I didn't know I had a realationship with this independant film director until I found myself repeatedly in his presence of several of the films I attended during the festival. Mr. George is very talented and although he touts this first directorship as flawed, I rarely found an occassion to agree with him.
Unlike the other films to this point there was stark violence to this film. There was no getting around it. It was paramont to the context of the film. In order to understand the 'life dynamics' of the characters presented here, the violence was necessary. The violence was also not compelling to the point of glamour either. All too often in today's society, violence is the goal of films and not a back drop to the story. In this film, Terry George was able to include violent scenes of the confllict in Northern Ireland without losing the definition of longed for peace among the Brits and Irish. The context of violence in this film would bring instantly the depth of understanding of the commitment of Bobby Sands and the IRA.
The plot takes place with primarily single mothers whom have sustained grief and hardship in their lives. The women are brave beyond the ability to impart here. The two that are friends are also in conflict. Their experiences had taken them to different 'civilized' places within the Irish society only brought together by chance of a common act of violence their sons now shared. The result is a significant statement of longevity of the Irish culture spanning centuries. Also, what it took to break that culture to the point of forgiveness of it's tormentors, the British, to find a way to hold onto heritage without holding on to the violence that would finally counter the British oppression.
I left this film with clairty, but, not ridicule of the IRA. The film was made in 1996. At that point there was a ceasefire among the Irish and the Brits. I can't help believe the film also served as a reminder as to what the Irish did not want to return to and hence pushing the peace forward. This film definately was about peace with a secondary plot line of friendship along several different character relationships. It's rather interesting to realize the people most often demonized by media can actually be heroes although never recognized as such. Nothing about the violence of the circumstances is admirable, but, it definately has it's justification. In Ireland, the reasons for that justification, during the Thatcher years, no longer existed in the same way it did only a decade before. The problem was breaking down the loyality to the past and the fear it would return. It was the Irish mother that finally was the hero and not a stateman or stateswoman.
I didn't know I had a realationship with this independant film director until I found myself repeatedly in his presence of several of the films I attended during the festival. Mr. George is very talented and although he touts this first directorship as flawed, I rarely found an occassion to agree with him.
Unlike the other films to this point there was stark violence to this film. There was no getting around it. It was paramont to the context of the film. In order to understand the 'life dynamics' of the characters presented here, the violence was necessary. The violence was also not compelling to the point of glamour either. All too often in today's society, violence is the goal of films and not a back drop to the story. In this film, Terry George was able to include violent scenes of the confllict in Northern Ireland without losing the definition of longed for peace among the Brits and Irish. The context of violence in this film would bring instantly the depth of understanding of the commitment of Bobby Sands and the IRA.
The plot takes place with primarily single mothers whom have sustained grief and hardship in their lives. The women are brave beyond the ability to impart here. The two that are friends are also in conflict. Their experiences had taken them to different 'civilized' places within the Irish society only brought together by chance of a common act of violence their sons now shared. The result is a significant statement of longevity of the Irish culture spanning centuries. Also, what it took to break that culture to the point of forgiveness of it's tormentors, the British, to find a way to hold onto heritage without holding on to the violence that would finally counter the British oppression.
I left this film with clairty, but, not ridicule of the IRA. The film was made in 1996. At that point there was a ceasefire among the Irish and the Brits. I can't help believe the film also served as a reminder as to what the Irish did not want to return to and hence pushing the peace forward. This film definately was about peace with a secondary plot line of friendship along several different character relationships. It's rather interesting to realize the people most often demonized by media can actually be heroes although never recognized as such. Nothing about the violence of the circumstances is admirable, but, it definately has it's justification. In Ireland, the reasons for that justification, during the Thatcher years, no longer existed in the same way it did only a decade before. The problem was breaking down the loyality to the past and the fear it would return. It was the Irish mother that finally was the hero and not a stateman or stateswoman.
This Film is Not Yet Rated
Where do I start with this one? I guess best to start with my conclusion. That being the Motion Picture Association of America (Also known as MPAA) and the National Association of Theater Owners (They affectionately call themselves NATO. What a joke.) have become tyrannts to the industry of ENTERTAINMENT. Although I would like to see them disbanded for many reasons; the least of which is bigotry as there is not a minority among the raters except for the supervisor whom is oriental; that would be remiss. These two organizations have legitimate places in the American landscape, however, as a 'cartel' together they have become detrimental. I think Jack Valenti (click on) may have realized that in his recent retirement, although my real instinct is the opposite.
The film more than adequately reveals the pursuit to understand the 'above it all' definitions of what the MPAA sees as legitimate reasons to 'rate' a film. It also reveals a very protected rating organization. I don't know why. I looked for legitimate reasons as to why such secrecy to the raters was important rather than transparency, but, I didn't find it. All the 'raters' of the films we watch in our society are middle age, white folks, with primarily grown children. There is a rare exception to that. The grown children aspect, not the white folks or middle aged.
Back in the day, when I was not middle age, the rating system of the MPAA was based in the 'adultness' of the content of the film.
G - General Audiences - all ages admitted
M- Mature Audiences - parental guidance suggested - all ages admitted
R - Restricted - people under the age of 16 were not admitted without being accompanied by a parent or adult guardian. That age limit was later raised to 17 years old.
X - no one under the age of 17 admitted. End of discussion.
Now, clearly the word 'adult' dominates the rating system. It was intended as a guideline to protect children but more than that it allowed adults to decide what level of 'frank' content they wanted to view. I personally did not find the rating system offensive or an insult to my intelligence at that point. I can't say the same for the one today.
Today, the MPAA breaks down the 'artistic content' of a film into components of social mores'. It's "W"rong to do that. It's creating pablum out of artists hard work. It's insulting and offense to me as an ADULT. I much rather read 'reviews' these days than seek a BIG LETTER to decide the fate of my 'movie going dollar.'
The current rating system is dominated by 'child' focus.
G - General Audiences - all ages admitted
PG - Parental Guidence Suggested - some material may not be suitable for children
PG-13 - Some material may not be suitable for children under the age of 13
R - under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian - in the opinion of "The Ratings Borad" the film definately contains some adult content.
NC-17 - No one 17 or under admitted - This rating declares that the "Rating Board" believes this is a film that most parents will consider patently too adult for their youngsters under 17. No children will be admitted.
THE RATINGS BOARD are nothing more than 'bean counters.' How many times an offensive word is stated. To what extent pubic hair appears on film. Whether or not the film has a pervasive theme to it, in other words the bean counters didn't have enough beans to continue to rate the film so it is automatically a NR-17. Etc. Etc. Etc. NOTHING IS LEFT IN CONTEXT. NOTHING. The American Public is looking at ratings according to standards set arbitrarily by Middle Age White Folks with falling hormone levels. There is no respect for the artists of the film being rated. IT'S COMPLETE STUPIDITY !!!
I am quite confident this film will meet with a great challenge in distribution, but, everyone should see this to come to understand the pains these independant film producers, directors and actors are going through to have their talent relieved of the oppression of channeled interest to protect industry profits.
To get to 'the bottom line' here. There needs to be alternative ratings systems. As a matter of fact I don't understand how or why the MPAA has cornered the market on movie ratings. There is a system in Europe/Britain that I am not convinced is any better but it doesn't seem to meet with the complaints that the American system has come to find scrutiny by the artists. There needs to be an International Independant Filmmaker and Satarist Assocaition (They could be iconned as IIFSA.). They should have their own rating system that appears with films as well and along side of MPAA's ratings. The rating system of such an organization should be based in the 'content/context' of a film realizing the human mind at any age has a framework of understanding when violence/sexuality is detrimental needing a harsh rating and when it is vital to the story. I would appreciate that rating system equally if not more than any other. I also appreciate good reviews from newsprint that reflects my value system. I would not consider a conservative critic as important to my 'movie dollar spending habit.' I would however value a critic with well rounded understanding of the world, the way it presents itself in artistic depiction and whether or not a child accompanying me that afternoon might be confused or upset at what would appear on the screen in front of them.
We need change and plenty of it. People need to think and not become robots acting on a rating system that demeans their thought processes to whether Adam and Eve did the right thing by eating the apple in the Garden of Eden.
HELP !!!!!
The film more than adequately reveals the pursuit to understand the 'above it all' definitions of what the MPAA sees as legitimate reasons to 'rate' a film. It also reveals a very protected rating organization. I don't know why. I looked for legitimate reasons as to why such secrecy to the raters was important rather than transparency, but, I didn't find it. All the 'raters' of the films we watch in our society are middle age, white folks, with primarily grown children. There is a rare exception to that. The grown children aspect, not the white folks or middle aged.
Back in the day, when I was not middle age, the rating system of the MPAA was based in the 'adultness' of the content of the film.
G - General Audiences - all ages admitted
M- Mature Audiences - parental guidance suggested - all ages admitted
R - Restricted - people under the age of 16 were not admitted without being accompanied by a parent or adult guardian. That age limit was later raised to 17 years old.
X - no one under the age of 17 admitted. End of discussion.
Now, clearly the word 'adult' dominates the rating system. It was intended as a guideline to protect children but more than that it allowed adults to decide what level of 'frank' content they wanted to view. I personally did not find the rating system offensive or an insult to my intelligence at that point. I can't say the same for the one today.
Today, the MPAA breaks down the 'artistic content' of a film into components of social mores'. It's "W"rong to do that. It's creating pablum out of artists hard work. It's insulting and offense to me as an ADULT. I much rather read 'reviews' these days than seek a BIG LETTER to decide the fate of my 'movie going dollar.'
The current rating system is dominated by 'child' focus.
G - General Audiences - all ages admitted
PG - Parental Guidence Suggested - some material may not be suitable for children
PG-13 - Some material may not be suitable for children under the age of 13
R - under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian - in the opinion of "The Ratings Borad" the film definately contains some adult content.
NC-17 - No one 17 or under admitted - This rating declares that the "Rating Board" believes this is a film that most parents will consider patently too adult for their youngsters under 17. No children will be admitted.
THE RATINGS BOARD are nothing more than 'bean counters.' How many times an offensive word is stated. To what extent pubic hair appears on film. Whether or not the film has a pervasive theme to it, in other words the bean counters didn't have enough beans to continue to rate the film so it is automatically a NR-17. Etc. Etc. Etc. NOTHING IS LEFT IN CONTEXT. NOTHING. The American Public is looking at ratings according to standards set arbitrarily by Middle Age White Folks with falling hormone levels. There is no respect for the artists of the film being rated. IT'S COMPLETE STUPIDITY !!!
I am quite confident this film will meet with a great challenge in distribution, but, everyone should see this to come to understand the pains these independant film producers, directors and actors are going through to have their talent relieved of the oppression of channeled interest to protect industry profits.
To get to 'the bottom line' here. There needs to be alternative ratings systems. As a matter of fact I don't understand how or why the MPAA has cornered the market on movie ratings. There is a system in Europe/Britain that I am not convinced is any better but it doesn't seem to meet with the complaints that the American system has come to find scrutiny by the artists. There needs to be an International Independant Filmmaker and Satarist Assocaition (They could be iconned as IIFSA.). They should have their own rating system that appears with films as well and along side of MPAA's ratings. The rating system of such an organization should be based in the 'content/context' of a film realizing the human mind at any age has a framework of understanding when violence/sexuality is detrimental needing a harsh rating and when it is vital to the story. I would appreciate that rating system equally if not more than any other. I also appreciate good reviews from newsprint that reflects my value system. I would not consider a conservative critic as important to my 'movie dollar spending habit.' I would however value a critic with well rounded understanding of the world, the way it presents itself in artistic depiction and whether or not a child accompanying me that afternoon might be confused or upset at what would appear on the screen in front of them.
We need change and plenty of it. People need to think and not become robots acting on a rating system that demeans their thought processes to whether Adam and Eve did the right thing by eating the apple in the Garden of Eden.
HELP !!!!!
That concluded my second day in Traverse City
And I am going to take a break in my entries for today. It's a great deal of fun putting my views to this blog.
I ended my viewing around midnight and strolled back to my hotel near the festival on Front Street. I never once felt worried about my safety. Traverse City mostly pulls up the sidewalks around late evening. The police aren't really high profile but they are about and always noted sometime within every hour or two. I walked alone. The street was well lighted. Nearly empty. All the many varied store fronts were closed without bars or cages over the windows. The exception to closed for the day business was the occassional 'hole in the wall' eating joint or social club. Even in those areas all was quite. I enjoyed the experience, but, I realized to this point I hadn't found the best of cuisine of Traverse City and needed to make that a priority soon.
... later ...
I ended my viewing around midnight and strolled back to my hotel near the festival on Front Street. I never once felt worried about my safety. Traverse City mostly pulls up the sidewalks around late evening. The police aren't really high profile but they are about and always noted sometime within every hour or two. I walked alone. The street was well lighted. Nearly empty. All the many varied store fronts were closed without bars or cages over the windows. The exception to closed for the day business was the occassional 'hole in the wall' eating joint or social club. Even in those areas all was quite. I enjoyed the experience, but, I realized to this point I hadn't found the best of cuisine of Traverse City and needed to make that a priority soon.
... later ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)