ROGER EBERT’S OVERLOOKED FILM FESTIVAL

By Steven Snyder

THURSDAY, APRIL 24

          Now that the traveling is over, and I am settling in to the Ebertfest routine, I find myself losing track of time. Sitting in a theater for twelve hours today, emerging intermittently only for air and/or food, I found that my internal systems were all messed up. I am used to going through my wake up routine, my mid-morning funk, lunch time, afternoon nap time, and then post-dinner energy boost. Instead, here in Champaign, I found myself consistently engaged and enthralled. Removed from my normal environment, I avoided the down points of my day.

          Today I was extremely interested in what was occurring: Fascinating movies and interesting guests. But, after discussing what I saw with so many people in the theater and with my Zertinet cohort David Johnson, who just arrived in Champaign, I find myself at a loss for much to say.

          The first film was “Stone Reader,” a pseudo-documentary about a filmmaker on a quest to find an author. That filmmaker is Mark Moskowitz, and that author is Dow Mossman’s, writer of “The Stones of Summer.” After reading the novel, Moskowitz decided he wanted to find the author, but that ended up being a far more difficult task than he ever imagined.

          So the movie is the story of this quest – of longing and exploration. And, in the process, “Stone Reader” speaks volumes about what literature is and what impact it has. I was most intrigued by its format. Is this a documentary? A fiction? In truth, it is a bit of both.

          I loved “Stone Reader” due to this uniqueness. It is not something you see everyday, and it is not an experience that will easily be forgotten.

         

          Wrapping up Thursday evening were two intriguing movies worth noting. The first was “Your Friends and Neighbors,” directed by Neil LaBute. A film, as Ebert says, about “monstrous selfishness,” “Your Friends and Neighbors” is a scathing examination of the American singles culture.

          It shows people out for their own interests, manipulating people at will, and the disinterest they exhibit when it comes to seriously caring about someone.

          The second film was “Blood and Wine,” starring Jack Nicholson, about a Florida wine dealer whose life is going downhill, fast. Everything in his life seems to be falling apart and he decides to partner with a British exile to steal a diamond necklace. Of course, there’s much more occurring here, but to give away the remainder of the plot would be to deny others the joy of experiencing the ride for the first time.

          The fun of “Blood and Wine,” however, occurs after the theft has taken place. It is a movie about the characters and reactions. Much like another recent heist film, “The Good Thief,” attention is directed where it should be – to the complexity of those committing the crime. And, thanks to that, the movie’s success does not rest on an object, but on the people.

FRIDAY, APRIL 25

          “Medium Cool”

 

          The weather may be horrible here at Roger Ebert’s Overlooked Film Festival, but the films just keep getting better. Just as a gray, rainy day dawned over Champaign, IL, I found myself walking into a groggy noon screening of “Medium Cool,” one of the more fascinating experiments in recent filmmaking.

          It is about the riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, and about several fictional characters who weave their way in and out of the realistic, chaotic events of that week. Directed by Haskell Wexler, “Medium Cool” merges fiction and reality, intercutting a fictional, and somewhat autobiographical story about a cameraman, the woman he loves, and a sound man with real-life footage of the ’68 riots.

          The result is a film that must be examined on multiple levels. As a “story,” it is a better-than-average drama, exploring the media, the political climate and the underlying social issues that led to the riots in the first place. In one of the film’s most notable moments, the cameraman meets and talks with several African American residents in a Chicago slum. Interested in putting one of them on television as a “human interest” story, he gets angry when some other characters request his attention. His disregard and apathy for them explodes into an altercation that foreshadows the riots to come.

          But on a more sophisticated level, “Medium Cool” must be considered as the first emergent of a new film form. It constructs a story around realistic events, and injects documentary footage into this fictional tale. In doing so, Wexler captures the insanity and fury of the riots, and the film remains today a remarkably powerful anti-authority testament. Excessive and abusive force seems to be everywhere the camera looks.

          While the film’s closing moments are a bit excessive and over-the-top, making its point loudly and obviously, I think I appreciate Wexler’s thesis on apathy and voyeurism. This was a time when insanity reigned supreme on the nation’s streets, when a country was being torn apart, and “Medium Cool” captures those emotions—both in its artifice and in its reality.

          Even more intense than the film itself was the post-film discussion between Roger Ebert and Wexler. Comparing 1968 to today, both agreed that the similarities were disturbing. A government out of control, an unneeded war, those in power using fear as a weapon – they were comments that elicited some applause, but also some questioning glances from those in the audience.

          Perhaps such a moment should have been unexpected, however. “Medium Cool” was a film steeped in its time, and the discussion following the film naturally became preoccupied with modern times. And setting all criticism of the President, the government and the national press aside, Wexler was right about one thing: “Medium Cool” is an emotional, passionate film.

I have long maintained that I always value films that take a chance over those that play it safe. With that in mind, “Medium Cool” is a clear winner.

 

“What’s Cooking?”

 

The day’s crowd-pleaser, “What’s Cooking?,” tells the story of four families over the course a single holiday – Thanksgiving. One family is African American, the others are Asian American, Jewish, and Vietnamese. During the day, each household must come to terms with one crisis or another. For instance, one family must cope with a divorce and another must overcome the awkwardness that accompanies a homosexual relationship. There are fights and arguments, revelations and fits.

And there is heart, a lot of heart. “What’s Cooking?” takes these stories and these families, is willing to allow them the space to grow at their own pace, and then is hopeful enough to give us an image of America that is, well, uplifting.

Ebert could not help but compare the film to “My Big Fat Greek Wedding,” and I can understand the comparison. Both films take ethnic stereotypes and clichés and then attempt to explore the heart behind the humor. But, for me, the films are not even close to equal.

“Greek Wedding” was eccentric and, in my opinion, often mocked those characters it pretended to love. “What’s Cooking?,” on the other hand, is interested in making these characters real. They are not only components of a bigger joke, but the drivers of a story that is both humorous and serious. Accordingly, when the film closes with a surreal punch of happiness, it is a bit more believable because we have bought into these people. And even if the story is a stretch, we are happy that all has turned out well for them.

 

“The Black Pirate”

 

One of my most meaningful movie going experiences ever was seeing “Metropolis” at last year’s Overlooked Film Festival. Not only is it clearly one of the best films ever made, but it was paired with a live accompaniment by the brilliant Alloy Orchestra.

Labeled by Ebert as the best in providing live accompaniments for silent films, the Alloy Orchestra is a breathtaking addition to any film. And they did not disappoint with their accompaniment tonight for “The Black Pirate.”

I did not find the film to be anything exceptional. It is a fun, swash-buckling tale of a heroic pirate coming to the rescue. But it is also a bit eccentric, and it has dated more so than the other fine silent films of the past. There were moments of laughter in the audience when its dated nature became apparent. But with Alloy’s accompaniment and the energy of an audience excited to see such a unique screening, “The Black Pirate” flew by in the blink of an eye.

The post-film discussion with the Alloy Orchestra yielded one truly interesting observation. Ebert noted that silent films take the viewer to a different place than conventional narrative fare. The music and the imagery absorbs the viewer in a different way, using a different part of the brain, and it involves the viewer more in the happenings on screen than the literal movies that spoon-feed the viewer with dialogue.

At the very least, this screening proved that silent films are still very capable of entertaining modern audiences. From elderly audience members to young children, “The Black Pirate” was thoroughly captivating and invigorating. Who would have imagined that a movie without sound could be so intense?

 

“L.627”

 

The final film of the day was “L.627,” about the efforts of French police to stem the use and trade of drugs in their country. It is an extraordinarily raw film, without the conventional plots and developments one would expect from a police film.

There is no real beginning or end to the story, but “L.627” begins in the middle of a standard day for France’s narcotics investigators and ends in the middle of another day. The point behind this construction is to allow a story to work on its own terms, developing and unfolding free from, what director Bertrand Tavernier deems the “tyranny of plot.” This movie is not driven by plot twists or climaxes, but seems to unfold naturally and freely.

Unlike a traditional movie, “L.627” feels uninhibited and realistic. This is a film about these officer’s lives and what they go through to get the job done. The futility of their profession becomes clear, as the same work piles up day after day. The flawed police system is exposed, as small drug users are punished while heavy users are ignored. And the corruption of the system is brought to center-stage, as even these officers’ best efforts are hindered by their drunk and apathetic colleagues, and a system that values statistics rather than real results.

Above the film’s structure and politics, there is also the touching personality of the film’s central hero. Passionate about his job, this man is not a saint, but just another flawed human being. He has a wife whom he ignores, helps out a prostitute whom he may love, and experiences a mix of emotions concerning his job, simultaneously interested in helping and punishing the scum he encounters.

The resulting mix is intoxicating. At almost two and a half hours long, I barely noticed the passing time. When I wasn’t fascinated by the portrayal of this flawed system, I was engrossed by this man’s life and the characters that surround him. This is a story that builds and fades, races and pauses, and is always unpredictable. It feels real and authentic, and takes us on a wild ride without the audience giving a second thought.

By the film’s end after midnight, I was at a loss for what to say. It is the best film I have seen thus far at Ebertfest. And the best part is knowing that tomorrow will likely be even better.

 

By David Johnson

THURSDAY, APRIL 24
Ah, to be flying on a horribly run airline on the brink of bankruptcy.  Needless to say, they got me to the right state, but that’s about it.  I won’t be flying this airline ever again if I can avoid it (American Airlines, btw)

FRIDAY, APRIL 25
Today’s film’s were quite a reprieve from crap that I’ve usually been watching lately.  With small town indie theatres still closing the great academy award nominated films, and mainstream cinema being the crapfest it usually is at this time, there hasn’t been a whole lot to keep my interest.  A day of mainstream film was just what I needed.

The opening film, Medium Cool, is somewhere between a documentary and a drama.  The director, Haskell Wexler,  had the foresight to film a full length feature film during the 1968 democratic national convention.  He worked fictional characters into the backdrop of the riots that occurred surrounding this event.  Medium Cool isn’t as much a commentary on the people and actions surrounding those events as it is a commentary on those that watched those events.  How reporters sat by and watched as cops beat civilians – as the rest of the country sat by and watched them on TV.  In the post-discussion commentary the director made the comment that this movie still applies today.  And while, I do believe there are many similarities between the events of today and the events of that late 60’s, I believe that it would diminish the events in the late sixties to try and compare those to today.  Today, if police arrest 20 people and fire tear gas into a mob everyone cries police brutality.  As this film graphically shows, that was the least of their problems in this turbulent time.

That said, there is still a great deal that one can take away from this movie.  When we live in an age when you can see embedded journalists in war and almost instantaneously read and view video from hundreds of sources over the internet.  For the most part, we as a nation sat by and watched streaming coverage of tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths and hundreds of American journalist and military deaths.  Yet, strangely enough instead of making our country more emotionally connected to the events occurring so far away, the nation has become more removed.  We as a nation cannot seem to distinguish the difference between ‘reality’ TV and the news.

That is where this film makes it’s mark on the viewer.  As we follow a young television camera man through his summer, we see him go through failed loveless relationships, a relationship based on nothing but fleeting emotion, his relationship with a small boy and even his relationship in ‘big media.’  We learn that his news station has been letting the FBI/CIA review tapes they have taken at protest rally’s and we watch as 50 protesters and 50 cops walk into each other Civil War style – all while the NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN trucks roll by capturing the stunning footage.  Throughout the entire movie, it was difficult for me to distinquish between the real footage and the staged footage.

Yet, Medium Cool was not without it’s failing.  Most notably the last 5 minutes of the film, which I won’t spoil for you, but will say that it was an utter disappointment.  The kind of manipulative, pretentious dribble that I would expect from Michael Moore.  It detracted from what could have been one of the most amazing films I’ve ever seen.

 

The next film, What’s Cooking, was not an overlooked film – at least in my humble opinion.  I didn’t know about it, and I’m not sure that I needed to.  By the same director as the current Bend it Like Beckman (note, do not see this movie) and in the tradition of My Big Fat Greek Wedding (which I hated), What’s Cooking creates takes all our stereotypes about ethnic cultures, wraps them up in a neat little politically correct package that we can all laugh at.  It felt like a sit-com.  Most characters where shallow over exaggerations of people, and they got into these situations that never occur in real life. 

One jewish family is dealing with their all too cute lesbian couple.  The Vietnamese family has a daughter who is rebelling, a son who doesn’t talk to the family and another son who doesn’t seem to want to associate with the family.  The latino family is dealing with a resent divorce and a daughter who is dating an Asian American.  And there is a black family dealing with marital problems and son who doesn’t agree with his conservative father.

This movie is better than My Big Fat Greek Wedding.  Some of the musical sequences are well done, and occasionally you see a glimmer of complexity in these characters.  Yet, still the problem remains the same, in a movie about minorities and living in a multicultural society, we see everything through stereotypes.  We laugh at these cultures that are different.  The other problem I had with this movie, is that while trying to portray a cross section of American culture, these four ethnicities where almost exactly the same.  They deal with identically trite issues.  The older generation needs to adapt to the younger’s far out and crazy ways.  The much older generation provides much needed wisdom and occasional comic relief.  And the married couples have to deal with some betrayal of some kind.  To be blunt, I just didn’t care – I would rather have watched an episode of Friends or Fraiser.

 

Next, I got a rare treat.  The Alloy Orchestra accompanied the silent film The Black Pirate.  Last year at the very festival, I saw The Allow Orchestra perform live music to Metropolis.  That experience was the single most moving cinematic experience of my life.  Alloy was typically wonderful.  Hearing a silent movie with live music made it so much more exciting and interactive.  Truly an amazing experience.  The film itself was fun and a delightful romp, but probably not anything I’ll think about ever again.  However, I still recommend highly that if you ever have a chance to see any silent movie with live accompaniment, GO!  Black Pirate is of interest though to any student of the use of color in films.  Although The Black Pirate was produced in the 20’s it was filmed in 2 color Technicolor.  For those of you unfamiliar, 3-color Technicolor uses a standard CYM color scheme to break any negative filmed into three distinctive colors (in use from the 30’s –late 50’s).  This film uses two colors, a magenta and a blue-green color.  It does definitely show in the film.  And while it does obviously distort the colors, it also gives the film an interesting feel to it.

 

The last film of the evening was a French film directed by acclaimed director Bertrand Tavernier (newest film Safe Conduct opening soon) was L.627.  The title refers to a section of the penal code where a drug user gets ‘physicals’ every 4 hours for 4 days in the hopes of cleaning the victim.  This film follows a cop during his time on the beat.  It attempts to capture the futility, the hope, the pain, the suffering and the difficulty that comes with this beat.  The film has some of the best characters I have ever seen in a film.  These characters are more real that anything I’ve ever seen and more complex.  No character is shallow, no action predictable.  In short (which I will expand on later), it’s an amazing film by a director with amazing command over his craft.