Blahed Out

Totally worn down, having sustained myself on less than five hours of sleep for the past three days. I need a break from the movies and the blogging. New grades are to the right, and since I have only one screening tomorrow (school starts also on top of this all - fun!), I'll write my slapdash reviews later. This morning, I decided to trade in Suburban Mayhem for the crowdpleaser Confetti by British director Debbie Isitt, which was obviously a smart move. A woman ahead of me in the lineup for Volver yesterday told me that it was a real treat, and I figured I would rather enjoy myself than sit through something dark and mind-numbing. Make sure you see this film when it opens later this year (Fox Searchlight is behind distribution, so even if it gets a limited theatrical release, a DVD release is guarenteed.) I was in hysterics throughout.

The rest of the day was strong as well; Pan's Labyrinth was arresting, although not as satisfying as del Toro's The Devil's Backbone or even Hellboy. Jafar Panahi's Offside was terrific, although two women next to me talked through the whole thing. Audience members around us shot them dirty looks all the time, but they would continue their obnoxious banter within a minute or two. I think one was acting as a translator (because her friend could not understand Farsi, nor read the English subtitles all that well.) I understand the situation, but you really shouldn't be attending a film that you will need explained to you, line by line. That's what DVD is for, so you can pause, rewind and make all the noise you want.

I will be lying down if anyone needs me.

EDIT: Oh, btw, browsing in Chapters in between screenings, I saw Tom Perrotta's Little Children on sale for 7 bucks (steal!). Forward several hours later: I am completely hooked and already more than halfway through. For those who haven't picked it up already, it's a quick read if you are willing to forego the film's surprises. I can already tell that this is going to make one fantastic cinematic experience. Winslet and Wilson are perfectly cast.

Day Three (Plus Full-Length "Volver" Review)

It was just before six a.m. that I ventured out into the darkness of the early morning, intent on catching the earliest express bus downtown. My purpose? To find a way (whether by winning same-day tickets or being first in line for rush seats) to gain entry into a screening of Pedro Almodóvar's Volver. All in all, my considerable lack of shut-eye and valiant effort to beat the crowd/clock was well worth it; I visited the festival box-office on the off-chance that a new block of tickets would be released. More than two hours before showtime, I was happily ordering a drink at Starbucks, a newly-printed voucher in my pocket. And the film certainy lived up to its reputation (see below for review.) My luck did not exactly continue with Marc Forster's Stranger than Fiction that evening; after waiting for an hour in the rush lineup, more than eighty people (including myself) were informed that the house was packed. The first time I have had bad luck with a rush lineup, but in the past for other films, I've been there at least two hours in advance. No big deal - I'm not exactly a fan of Forster or the overexposed Will Ferrell (who plays the lead). I simply wanted to catch a glimpse of Maggie Gyllenhaal and Emma Thompson (who looked "absolutely stunning", according to a volunteer I talked to outside the theatre), and had an extra coupon to spare for the evening. When that last show didn't work out, I decided to return home and conserve my energy for the next few days.

Re: Pictures. If the incident with the cameraphobic usher on Thursday wasn't bad enough, today moviegoers were informed that even bringing such "techtoys" into the theatres (let alone turning them on) would be grounds for removal from the screenings. I am going to have to find a way to discreetly hide my camera when handing my tickets to the volunteers. This bullying is getting out of hand; there is a big difference between wanting to take a couple of snapshots of celebrities and actually recording an entire feature-length film. I'm sure the most ignorant of theatre staff can tell which one is the illegal act. Anyways, no one showed up for Volver, I got a shot of director Mark Palansky introducing his film Penelope (the cast appeared for the Q&A, but I had to jet for my next screening), and although Tarsem Singh and two cast members were on-hand to present The Fall, the no-gadgetry policy was being especially enforced at that particular venue.

*Mild Spoiler Warning*

Volver
(Pedro Almodóvar, 2006)
Members of the male sex are tellingly of little concern in the close-knit community almost wholly populated by the female characters of Pedro Almodóvar's Volver, a loving testament to the relationships and intimacies shared between women (bravely depicted warts and all.) It is a celebration of womanhood in that the progressive construction of new dreams and hopes in these individuals' lives (both material and emotional) are made a reality only through the support this unshakably-linked band of mothers, daughters and old family friends offer one another. But in order for positive and healthy growth to take place, Almodóvar argues that the skeletons of the past must be thoroughly exhumed and acknowledged. Only then can the traumatic wounds of past (mis)deeds begin to heal, and - indeed - before the credits on Volver roll, themes of forgiveness, abuse, neglect, and selective memory are meatily "fleshed out". But all of these elements are still packaged in the familiar Almodóvar recipe so many film lovers have come to adore - his trademark soapy plot lines, his absurd plot twists, and his tremendously flawed (and therefore endearing) human figures. And it is undoubtedly one of his treasures; a passionate, aching film literally throbbing with a pulse of its own.

Although the revealing twists of the film are best unraveled on virgin eyes and ears, the characters begin their journeys in the following states. In modern-day Madrid, Raimunda (Penélope Cruz) works several jobs to support her perpetually jobless husband and teenage daughter Paula. Lola Dueñas plays her sister Sole, who makes a living by running an in-home beauty salon. The family suffered a tragedy several years before, when both Raimunda and Sole's parents burned to death in a house fire. The sisters meet every so often, but the routine so familiar to each woman suddenly veers off course when two life-changing events occur almost simultaneously - death visits two characters not long after they are introduced. This is the catalyst for several changes in the women's lives: Irene (the sisters' deceased mother) begins to appear to certain loved ones, while Raimunda embarks on the opportunity to stand on her own two feet fiscally and emotionally. Meanwhile, an old family friend Agustina (Blanca Portillo) who always comes to the family's aid in times of crisis asks Raimunda for a seemingly impossible request. Volver then unspools in every imaginable direction - as light is thrown upon the shadows of the past, the current situations faced by the formidable women come into sharper focus.

What Almodóvar always returns to is the idea of an unbreakable loyalty proven by these women on a consistent basis. No matter how grim the situation may be, they are there for one another through thick and thin. Indeed, just as Irene apparently rises from the dead to nurture and protect her lonely children, the women of Volver exercise a sense of motherly authority over one another. Instinct kicks in, and the need to protect and shield (a motif that resonates even more powerfully in light of a revelation towards the end of the film.) The women often clash heads over different matters and opinions (especially the hot-tempered Raimunda, who always lashes out before she thinks on the consequences), but reconciliation and forgiveness are inevitable ends in the continuous cycle. A theme of group empowerment is key; as individuals, the female characters are strong-willed, yet isolated. In one another's company, they are invincible.

Though one could say that the film works simply as a well-crafted melodrama, an argument can be made that Almodóvar himself makes a clear distinction between what is sensationalized and exploitative in the media, and then the art that is more respectful and affectionate of its characters and their dilemmas. Consider the scene in which the ailing and shunned Agustina appears as a guest on a daytime talk show, having promised to air her "dirty linen" live in front of a studio audience (and millions of viewers at home.) The vapid hostess (reminiscent of the desperate interviewer who hilariously tries to extract information from Rosario Flores's prize-winning bullfighter in Talk to Her) promises Agustina advanced health care in exchange for spilling her family's deeply-buried secrets. Realizing that betraying her close family friends not only injures them but herself as well, Agustina refuses to participate. Similarly, Almodóvar refuses to sell-out his lady loves: Volver is an acknowledgment of their very human qualities, not a campy and degrading circus intended to poke fun at them.

Although Volver works exceptionally well by itself on paper and due to the strength of Almodóvar's unflappable convictions, the film would be unimaginable without this particular cast playing the striking characters. Penélope Cruz is a revelation, simply put. Nothing in her mainstream Hollywood output can prepare an otherwise dispassionate viewer for this generous, flawless characterization. True to Raimunda, Cruz is stubborn and cruel when understandably overcome with frustration, but equally open and spiritually naked in other moments. In one stand-out scene, her character is moved to perform a song her mother once taught her; Cruz may not sing the words herself, but commits fully to that moment. Tears rolling down her face, her soul lifting upwards, there is no holding back. This is the performance of her career. The other cast members are not sidelined though; as Sole, Lola Dueñas is given a juicy comic role that she enacts with full gusto. Meanwhile, Yohana Cobo is mature and likable as Raimunda's no-nonsense daughter, and Blanca Portillo's expressive face truly illuminates the lonely Agustina. And finally, Carmen Maura (working with Almodóvar again after a ten year-plus interval) brings great humanity and motherly love to Irene. The entire cast truly deserved the ensemble prize at Cannes - how could the jury have singled out a single woman in this wealth of talent?

Overall, Volver does not represent a cute-yet-frivolous diversion in Almodóvar's canon; rather, I believe that there is something truly exciting happening here. No doubt, it works as an entertaining dramedy in the footsteps of something like Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown. But there's something even more revolutionary and transcendent about his latest, which includes the viewer in on the characters' journey towards redemption and togetherness. After the twists and secrets are exposed, it is almost as if Almodóvar is opening the door for a greater story. As these women move towards a better understanding of themselves as limitless in their potential and boundless in spirit, Volver clearly reads as Almodóvar's love letter to his women. The people in his life that participated in his craft, that fascinated him as human beings and supported him as a friend. Volver translates as "to return"; indeed, return I hope he does, with more material studying the complex ways in which we function as vulnerable, demanding creatures. No one does it better these days. A

And quick thoughts on the other two:

Penelope
(Mark Palansky 2006; pictured)
After Volver, the whimsical modern-day fairy tale Penelope came as a disappointment in its treatment of mother-daughter relationships, self-actualization and body image. Playing as a bland mish-mash of Richie Rich, The Princess Diaries and Lemony Snicket, the story revolves around a curse (dating back several generations) that afflicts a highly privileged land-owning family. The main victim: an innocent girl with a heart of gold, but damned with the facial features of a swine (played gamely by a wide-eyed Christina Ricci.) Catherine O'Hara plays her superficial, overbearing mother, while Penelope's father (Richard E. Grant) feels that the girl needs space to grow. Trapped in a mansion of expensive commodities, but starved for human contact, Penelope eventually rebels against her sheltered surroundings and embarks on a journey towards indepedence out there in the real world. Meanwhile, a potential suitor (James McAvoy) lingers on the scene, offering the young woman a chance to break the evil spell causing her physical otherness. Penelope is not without its moments and serves up big laughs from time to time (often delivered by O'Hara, or Peter Dinklage as an eye patch-wearing undercover reporter.) But the screenplay is disappointingly predictable right down to its every word: true love-threatening engagements that carry no suspense, life-teaching morales about self-acceptance, and a villain that is determined to cause conflict-causing problems just so that the film has ground to cover. Thusly, the proceedings never feel spontaneous, but gimmicky and meaningless. Worse yet, the film cops-out on its own message of self-acceptance, contradicting much of what Palansky espoused. Cute, but empty calories. Reese Witherspoon serves as one of the film's producers, and only appears an hour into the film to play a stock best-friend role. C

The Fall
(Tarsem Singh, 2006)
In terms of genre and approach, miles away from the disturbing images of 2000's The Cell, but Tarsem still lingers on the idea of the shared imagination and dream worlds. This time, instead of one person entering another's consciousness, he explores a universe equally constructed by two people. In the early twentieth century, a Los Angeles hospital houses two very different patients - one a twenty-something Hollywood stuntman recovering from a near-fatal injury, the other a five-year-old Eastern European girl with a broken arm and very hungry for distraction. The two form a tender friendship, and since he cannot make use of his legs, she visits him in his bed everyday, and they pass the long mornings and afternoons in each other's company. The clinically-depressed Roy (a strong, capable Lee Pace) offers to relate an adventurous epic to the girl in exchange for her stealing morphine pills for him (in case the pain ever becomes too much to handle.) Alexandria, his young companion, is hesitant at first, but as Roy offers tidbits to whet her appetite, she cannot refuse his proposition. As the epic is narrated, Tarsem cuts to a fantasy world in which five wronged men from different parts of the globe vow vengeance on an oppressive lord who is to blame for their misfortunes. As in The Wizard of Oz, hospital staff and other individuals from the real world stand in for this imaginary universe. As Roy recedes further and further into his darkness, Alexandria becomes his only link to the real world. The bleak truth about Roy's suicidal mindset juxtaposed against Alexandria's hope forms the grounds upon which the film proceeds. The Fall is obviously a beautifully-made story; apparently, Tarsem shot in thirty-two countries over a period of four years to bring to life this tale of heroism, war and kinship. Pace is credible in both roles as the emotionally-dead patient and the brave hero of the tale, but it is Catinca Untaru as Alexandria that steals the film. Her delivery is hilarious, and instantly adorable without approaching cutesy kid shtick (read: Jerry Maguire.) B

Day Two

Not much to add this time around; more frantic speed-walking back and forth across the city, attempting to join ticket-holder lineups before they begin to dangerously swell and overfill. More money wasted on junk food and sugary, caffeinated Starbucks drinks to keep myself awake through the waiting and watching (yes, I did pack a lunch in an effort to conserve funds, but I ate it for breakfast. Ah well.) No celebrity sightings for the first three films (the lead actress of Climates, Ebru Ceylan, showed up but the lighting was too poor to take shots - I also hated the film, so no big loss); as for A Grave-Keeper's Tale, it was a true joy to have director Chitra Palekar and the gifted actor Nandita Das (you may recall that she served on the Cannes Film Festival jury last year) present to both introduce the film and participate in a Q&A following the screening. I had a chance to briefly greet Das afterwards and congratulate her on the strength of her past performances (in Fire, Bawandar, Hari-Bhari, Kannathil Muthamittal, etc) and her work in this film. I am still a little star-struck, to tell you the truth.

Note: I'm not really happy with the state of these reviews, as they were worded quite differently (read: better) in my mind on the way home, but they will have to do for now. I have to wake up in less than five hours to head back in an attempt to grab tickets for Almodóvar's Volver. Wish me luck (if you will be so kind.)

Takashi Miike’s latest, Big Bang Love, Juvenile A, is a fascinating blend of philosophical treaty, murder mystery and unrequited gay romance. While it manages to successfully encompass and pull off all those elements in varying degrees, it cannot be denied that the film is a love-it-or-hate-it experience. This is perhaps the first festival screening I can remember where absolutely no one clapped - for a Toronto audience, that is virtually unheard of. Even for films that are largely met with an air of indifference, smatterings of applause here and there are typical (even expected.) The gist of the matter involves two young men - Jun and Shiro - recently imprisoned for unrelated acts of murder; the first is a soft-spoken, boyish youth, the latter a wild and dangerous troublemaker. The film begins with the discovery of Shiro's body being strangled at the hands of Jun, and the majority of the film is then devoted to flashbacks, in which Miike depicts each youth's troubled backstory and the experiences they have in prison (with each other, and with other individuals populating the rank and cavernous building.) Miike also explores the notion of manhood and identity, and he returns to these matters continuously throughout. Much time is also devoted to a thread involving an inquisitive police official attempting to solve the mystery behind Shiro's end (confessionals by the inmates, warden and other staff are directed towards the camera, as if the audience members are the ones positing the questions.) For the most part, Big Bang Love works; the creepy atmosphere, symbolic imagery (both men are able to look beyond the prison walls and observe a rocket and Mayan pyramid, representing space to one, and heaven to the other), and the time shifts are engaging and maintain interest. Unfortunately, the proceedings run out of steam about two-thirds in; Miike spends more time re-visiting what already came before in the murder investigation, while more pressing matters (such as the complexity of Jun and Shiro's intense bond) are left behind. I did enjoy most of it, but am unsure to what extent I would recommend it to others. C+

*Possible Spoilers* Beginning early on in the familiar convention of a gripping film noir (all the ingredients are present, from the gorgeous femme fatale, to the moody and dense atmosphere), Finnish director Aki Kaurismäki’s Lights in the Dusk surprisingly transitions into something of a bleak existential drama about trying to make it day by day in an unsympathetic, self-interested world. At first, the shift may seem jarring and at odds with what came before (especially considering the director's focus during the first hour of running time.) But upon further reflection, it is arguable that the tragic ordeals the lead character Koistenen experiences (played by a pitiable Janne Hyytiäinen) are part of an attempt by Kaurismäki to drive home an ironic twist on the expected outcome. This, in my mind, elevates the film from a standard crime potboiler into something much more soulful and character-driven. The basic premise involves an introspective, people-shy security guard who finds any type of human interaction painful to sustain. His social life remains empty and bland until a friendly blonde walks into his life and opens him up to the possibility of an intimate connection. But what follows is an utter and complete downfall from (comfortable, if unsatisfying) stability; Koistenen quickly finds himself in hot water, and his situation progressively worsens from one scene to the next. On one hand, his refusal to challenge and fight back against his oppressors is frustrating; even when he does decide to retaliate, he surges forward half-heartedly, as if he knows that failure is inevitable. And yet, this is not a revenge drama - Kaurismäki is more interested in the character's up-and-down journey, and the small - often fleeting - pockets of hope that give him purpose to move on (including Maria Heiskanen's Aila, an old friend who hints at wanting more.) It is a quiet, meditative film, but a character journey well worth undertaking. B

I am not sure what director/actor/writer/editor Nuri Bilge Ceylan’s intention was with the interminable Climates; whether a narcissistic vanity project or an effort to exorcise his own personal demons, it is a bloated misfire by any definition. Attempting to portray the breakdown – and then the potential rekindling – of a strained marriage, the film demands an hour and forty minutes to cover barely twenty minutes’ of action. The conceit is that the stages of the relationship are mirrored in the shifting seasons – spring/summer (growth), autumn (slow decay) and winter (death.) Ceylan’s metaphors seem absolutely novel compared to his hollow script, which offers nothing for the viewer to mull upon. His approach is restricted to achingly long takes, where dramatic beats punctuated in between dialogue are made to signify severity. The reality is that there is no pay-off; Ceylan repeats the same cycle of connection and misunderstanding between the husband and wife incessantly, with nothing new to offer. Ceylan and Ebru Ceylan (as the conflicted woman; also the director’s off-screen wife) commit themselves fully to recreating what are no doubt very personal family histories, but they are undoubtedly events better off left in memory. The different “climates” and places depicted – a beach paradise getaway in Kas, the snowy mountain ranges of the north – attempt to add dimension, but serve simply as distractions from the weakly-etched characters always undermining themselves. The saving grace of the film comes in the appearance of actor Nazan Kesal, playing a scornful ex-flame of Ceylan’s; working with nothing substantial, she conveys a palpable mix of bitterness, lust and hesitance in her interludes with Ceylan – it is a shame that she only appears in the second act. The film could have used her energy during the turgid majority. D-

For a first attempt with a full-length feature film, Chitra Palekar truly impresses with A Grave-Keeper's Tale, based on a short story by celebrated Bengali writer Mahasweta Devi. Set in a post-Gandhi, late 1950's Maharashtra village, it is a film that critically examines the state of (especially) women under caste and gender hierarchies. However, Palekar is also interested in how power imbalances created by ignorance and superstition become internalized and fixed within the consciousness of a people carrying generations of abuse and inequality. The gifted Nandita Das, one of India's best actors working today outside the mainstream output, plays a frightful village outcast denounced as a "ghoul" that feeds and nurtures of the bodies of dead young children. The villagers make sure to keep their distance, lest the witch pollute their environments with her evil and unlucky presence. Dalits (or "untouchables") themselves are unsympathetic to her situation; as one woman puts it, "I may be an untouchable, but at least I do not bury the bodies of dead children." Indeed, Chandi is left the task of performing funeral rites for young ones, a responsibility left to her by her ancestors. While the status quo maintains that Chandi live a separate life from her fellow people (even her close relations), a young boy fascinated by her infamous reputation decides to ask his father about the intimidating figure. What follows is a detailed backstory of the "witch", once a mother and integral part of the community, and the events causing downfall into ill-repute. Palekar's film has its usual hiccups (easily forgivable, considering the minimal budget and it being her first effort), but the passion for the issues is potent. When Chandi refuses to be complicit in the village men's demands or stay confined in the community's definition of a "good woman", she is punished with a brutal sentence. Palekar also shows how Chandi's husband (the wonderful Atul Kulkarni) also turns against her when he feels the judgment and disapproval of his fellow villagers. It is a simple film, but is moving in its universal ideas about mothers and children, conformity in society, and the need to isolate and suppress what is different from the "norm". B

Day One

The festival has officially begun... or, to be more exact, began approximately eight hours ago with a screening of Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of Mozart's The Magic Flute at 2 p.m. I attended that showing, and also snuck in an evening film - the Palme D'Or-winning The Wind that Shakes the Barley by Ken Loach. The day went by very quickly, spent waiting in lineups and walking from one theatre to the next. I'm not particularly tired at the moment, but I only did two films after all; next Friday , I have a whopping five scheduled, so we'll see how I'm faring then. Overall, it was a solid start to the festival; the Branagh came as something of a mild disappointment (but it certainly had its charms), while the Loach completely bowled me over. Just a sidenote - because of piracy fears, the festival volunteers have become especially paranoid about cameras in the cinema halls. Before the first film began, I was simply taking pictures of the festival director (Piers Handling) doing his opening remarks and was loudly scolded by a scandalized usher (as if I were taping the film itself!) Therefore, I might not be able to deliver photos on a consistent basis, although I will still try to evade those pesky, power-trip losers.

For The Magic Flute, the D.P. Roger Lanser showed up to introduce the film; Branagh is in Venice right now, but sent a humourous taped video thanking the audience for showing interest. In an interesting bit of trivia, the film had its world premiere simultaneously both in Toronto and Venice - apparently, the latter screening was set to start only twenty minutes after ours did. Neat! As for The Wind that Shakes the Barley, Cillian Murphy was on-hand to both introduce the film and offer his comments in a Q&A following the screening (see picture below.) The actor is shockingly waif-ish in person - scarecrow indeed! I also took a video of the discussion, and although it is hardly perfect (it was taken on my digital camera, which has no zoom feature for that command), the audio is quite adequate. Currently, both YouTube and Google Video are giving me problems uploading it, but I'll keep working at it. Murphy talked about Loach's methods, approaching his own character, and the reaction to the film in both Ireland and England.

Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of The Magic Flute is a mostly winsome affair, this time performed entirely in English (the libretto is written by Stephen Fry.) The proceedings are captured against the backdrop of the Great War, although Branagh sidesteps any direct reference to nations or specific events during that time period. The setting is simply used as a starting point; in fact, apart from the bookends of the film taking place entirely within the trenches, the true meat of the story lies in faithfully retreading Mozart's plot. That is not to say Branagh and Fry have not had fun updating the piece for the early twentieth century; for example, the Queen's attendents are now nurses tending to wounded soldiers at the frontline, and the bird catcher Papageno is a "pigeon" military messenger (get it?.) Ultimately though, the main concern of the story is that of Tamino and Pamina, two lovers separated by a scheming mother, a powerful lord and character-testing ordeals. The film is characteristic of the pace (and length) of an opera; dilemmas that could be solved in a matter of minutes are stretched out for several scenes, and the individuals attempting to overcome their obstacles spell out every motivation and feeling by immediately shifting into tenor/baritone/soprano/bass/etc. Yet if one is willing to buy into this world without reservation, the twists and turns can be quite captivating. Interestingly enough, what surprised me the most about Branagh's direction is how much he relies on other films for inspiration; the first twenty minutes unfold at the speed of Moulin Rouge!'s own opening, and some shots echo Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy (believe it or not.) There is a lot of use of miniatures and similar visual effects work that seems unnecessary, although the opening sequence (which lasts possibly more than five minutes) is something of a marvel - the camera moves from lingering on a small flower in the ground that Tamino picks up, to sweeping across packed trenches along the battlefield, to moving upwards to the sky, dancing with the fighter planes zipping through the clouds. All in all, there is nothing particularly exciting about this attempt at opening up the work; apart from a few clever lines, Fry's text is rather flat, and no major changes have been made to the story. But it is definitely worth a worth a look for Branagh/Mozart enthusiasts eager to see a fresh and visually ambitious take on the opera. B-

Although I have seen very few of Ken Loach's films (aside from this one, only Sweet Sixteen, Ae Fond Kiss and his contribution to 11'09"01), I can safely say that this is one director's worldview I truly gel with. The Wind that Shakes the Barley is a thrilling story of how several passionate IRA revolutionaries banded together in the early 1920's to put an end to British oppression. At the forefront are two brothers, Demian (Cillian Murphy) and Teddy (Padraic Delaney), who decide to head the movement after a series of deadly and merciless attacks by the Black and Tans (a brutal force responsible for "policing" all of Ireland) pushes them over the edge. For the entire two-hour running time, Loach holds the viewer's full attention in his grasp - aside from a few moments developing camaraderie between the group's members and a tender romance, the tension is unrelenting. And despite the fact that the film's perspective is deeply grounded on one side of the conflict, the film still manages never to resort to off-putting jingoism. True, the British forces are portrayed as authorities determined to suppress dissent at any cost, yet they are hardly moustache-twirling villains (one scene even shows the ambivalence one official feels at his violent orders.) Loach is more interested in the state of affairs amongst the IRA members, especially once debate emerges regarding how the new Ireland should be run. The true complexity emerges here, once Loach deconstructs the Anglo-Irish Treaty as an agreement that simply spawned another hierarchical, forbidding regime. Like last year's Manderlay, what I came away with were similar questions about nation-building and how one's well-meant ideals can quickly errode for the purpose of pusuing a "greater good" (which may not be "good" after all.) Towards the end, the film does fall prey to overpreaching, but that can hardly negate the strength of what came before. Cillian Murphy is perhaps the only well-known actor in the cast (and he is pitch-perfect in the role, never overplaying the character's zeal), but everyone is excellent. B

Lineup for tomorrow:
Big Bang Love, Juvenile A
Lights in the Dusk
Climates
A Grave-Keeper's Tale

"Your dog's hair is in my pipes, it's... causing problems."

And forging onwards... Click here to see the first part of this post, specifically the predix for Picture, Director, Actress and Actor.

BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
1. Jennifer Hudson, Dreamgirls
2. Juliette Binoche, Breaking and Entering
3. Anika Noni Rose, Dreamgirls
4. Angelina Jolie, The Good Shepherd
5. Carmen Maura, Volver
---
6. Judi Dench, Notes on a Scandal
7. Diane Lane, Hollywoodland
8. Sharon Stone, Bobby
9. Jennifer Connelly, Little Children
10. Maggie Gyllenhaal, World Trade Center

Any shortlist that does not begin with Jennifer Hudson is problematic - it's as simple as that. The Dreamgirls star will likely lock up this category for the majority of the season in the popular award shows (SAG + GG [depends on placement] + BFCA, etc)... although it is way too early to be talking about winners (getting ahead of myself.) I've been hearing fantastic things about Juliette Binoche in Breaking and Entering; she plays a Serbian immigrant who becomes tangled up with Jude Law's character. The Academy clearly loves her; they handed her an Oscar when she wasn't the frontrunner in a now-famous upset, and then another nomination that even she seemed to question.) Perhaps there is still leftover guilt about snubbing her for Bleu back in '94 (as they should be!) I also see another Dreamgirls cast member getting pulled into the mix, in a repeat of Chicago's acting nod takeover. Plus, Supporting Actress often makes room for two nominees from the same film (Almost Famous, Gosford Park and Chicago.) Since Noni Rose shares her scenes with likely nominee Eddie Murphy, I can see her getting great notices too. Then there's Angelina Jolie, who could see herself strolling the red carpet with boyfriend and potential Best Actor nominee Brad Pitt. Although she's taken a hit for the whole tabloid craze, people do genuinely love her, and she's been getting good press for her humanitarian efforts. All that in addition to being in a likely Best Picture nominee (+ playing stressed-out wife supporting secretive husband role?) bodes well for her second nomination in this category. My fifth pick is a little "out there", considering any actor from #6 - #10 would make a lot more sense, but it's not completely ludicrous. From what I've heard (or what has been spoiled for me, thanks Roger Ebert), Maura has a tasty role in Almodóvar's drama. If Volver ends up a bigger success than many have predicted, both Cruz and she could find themselves tipped as contenders. Hey, this early in the game, anything's possible.

Never bet against Judi Dench either (in addition to Clint Eastwood); the woman was nominated for Mrs. Henderson Presents last year despite the fact that she didn't bother to campaign (or even seem to care, for that matter.) Notes on a Scandal has her playing against Cate Blanchett (now there's a duo I cannot wait to see on-screen), but I'm leaving her out because, like her co-star, it may be too soon after so much attention. Meanwhile, Diane Lane is finally appearing in a film that is not Must Love Dogs; how exciting. It would be nice to see her attending the Oscars again, considering she keeps such a low profile otherwise, but will this September turn be memorable enough to last through the season? As for Bobby's multi-star cast, it would make sense that one actor would feature on a supporting category (like Matt Dillon represented his fellow Crash thespians last year.) Sharon Stone has been getting some attention around the blogosphere lately, although will voters be able to overlook her other "film" released earlier this year? If not. there's always Jennifer Connelly in Little Children; she always gets great reviews, although will Winslet completely overshadow her? While that remains to be seen, I am most interested to see how Maggie Gyllenhaal fares this winter; her Sherrybaby performance has been discussed a lot lately, but it's probably too small to compete in the overstuffed Best Actress slate. So World Trade Center it is... although will that be enough? She's solid in the film, but Oscar nom-worthy?

BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
1. Eddie Murphy, Dreamgirls
2. Ben Affleck, Hollywoodland
3. Tobey Maguire, The Good German
4. Robert Downey Jr., Fur
5. Jackie Earle Haley, Little Children
---
6. Jack Nicholson, The Departed
7. James McAvoy, The Last King of Scotland
8. Brian Cox, Running with Scissors
9. Michael Sheen, The Queen
10. Gael Garcia Bernal, Babel

Like everyone has been saying, Eddie Murphy will undoubtedly pick up his first-ever nomination (if his work in Dreamgirls is as good as rumoured.) And since Oscar loves comeback and image reinventions, Ben Affleck looks tortured and focused enough as the disturbed George Reeves in Hollywoodland to be taken seriously again. Tobey Maguire may seem like an odd choice, but like Derek Luke, he seems the right age and at the right point in his career to win a nomination. Steven Soderbergh has been gushing about his actor's work in The Good German, which gives Maguire an opportunity to shed his "awshuks", non-threatening Spider-Man persona. Soderbergh has led his actors to Oscar success before, so Maguire could follow in that path. Robert Downey Jr. looks to have a very exciting role in Fur, and if voters can see his acting through the costuming/makeup/whatever, he may linger in their minds. Trick is that the Academy sometimes gets fussy about performances like this, where the "acting" is obstructed/filtered in some way (Andy Serkis in The Two Towers.) Either way, it looks like a fresh page for Downey Jr. to be taken seriously as a great actor again. Then there's Little Children's Jackie Earle Haley, which is kind of a risky prediction (considering the nature of the role), but it may pay off. There's always room for newcomers in the Oscar process... and Field has talked about how the actor really had to reach far to access this character. If the film does not completely scare away voters, there's no reason why Haley's name won't be discussed in Academy circles.

Many people seem gung-ho on Jack Nicholson for The Departed, but I'm not sure that the film will be Oscar's cup-of-tea. Yet giving him a record 13th nomination in the same year Meryl Streep gets her 14th will be press the Academy will probably not want to forego. James McAvoy has been become a hot property following his scene-stealing performance in The Chronicles of Narnia, and that could bolster his chances for acknowledgment. His role in the fairy tale-like romance Penelope opposite Christina Ricci and Reese Witherspoon this November may also give him more traction. If Brian Cox is able to stand out in the mammoth cast of Running for Scissors, the underrated and owed actor could certainly be handed a nod of appreciation. His body of work in 2002 worked against him - he nailed all of those characters, but vote splitting undoubtedly killed his chances. In The Queen, Michael Sheen plays Tony Blair; like with Erin Brockovich and The Contender, we could have a lead actress - supporting actor combo (strong female lead - male authority figure) nominated together from the same film. And Gael Garcia Bernal has been building quite the impressive resume in the last few years since Amores perros. Could re-teaming with that film's director finally lead him to major Hollywood kudos?

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
1. Emilio Estevez, Bobby
2. Guillermo Arriaga, Babel
3. Eric Roth, The Good Shepherd
4. Anthony Minghella, Breaking and Entering
5. Christopher Guest, For Your Consideration
---
6. Paul Greengrass, United 93
7. Pedro Almodovar, Volver
8. Shawn Slovo, Catch a Fire
9. Peter Morgan, The Queen
10. Michael Arndt, Little Miss Sunshine

The writing categories are always difficult, mostly because (unlike the acting shortlists) they are so dependant on the Picture nominees. Because I sense a lot of those films will be adapted from prior source material, this field for original scripts seems like a free-for-all. First, Estevez and Arriaga have the most heat right now; the former will be rewarded for branching out, while the latter seems ready for his first nod after several high-profile films. Forrest Gump scribe Eric Roth could be swept into a Good German sweep if the film is especially loved by AMPAS (which would count as his fourth nomination, and a consecutive one after Munich last year.) Anthony Minghella is a magnificient writer, especially talented at adapting complex novels; will his second time writing from scratch prove equally magnetic? Then there's Christopher Guest, who has never earned an Oscar nomination for any of his witty mockumentaries (criminal!); perhaps this playful jab at the Academy will prove successful? Let's pray that they have a sense of humour about For Your Consideration.

Paul Greengrass is likely to pick up another nomination for his well-respected United 93; however, on watching the film, will writing seem like one of its better strengths to voters? Conversely, Pedro's screenplays are always celebrated as novel and absorbing, but has the Academy had its full with the man's rapid output in the last few years? Catch a Fire could mirror last year's The Constant Gardener; voters might consider giving the film love here if they find it too controversial for a Best Picture mention. The Queen has been discussed as a fascinating enactment of many documented statements about the royal family's reaction to Princess Diana's death. Along with an Actress nod, AMPAS could throw more respect its way with a placement here. And as much as it pains me to say it, I'm sure Little Miss Sunshine will win Arndt several prizes ("First Best Screenplay", many ISA accolades, etc) this coming awards season. The unsatisfying feature is the sleeper hit of the late summer, and the Academy does love small success stories for the independents (2002's My Big Fat Greek Wedding.)

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
1. Paul Haggis, Flags of Our Fathers
2. Bill Condon, Dreamgirls
3. Jeremy Brock, The Last King of Scotland
4. Todd Field, Little Children
5. Patrick Marber, Notes on a Scandal
---
6. Paul Attanasio, The Good German
7. Ryan Murphy, Running with Scissors
8. Alan Bennett, The History Boys
9. Josh Friedman, The Black Dahlia
10. Jonathan Nolan & Christopher Nolan, The Prestige

It may be unbearable to consider Paul Haggis in the running for the third time in a row, but he's clearly the industry's "it" boy at the moment. His involvement in this World War II epic directed by Eastwood, with the added exposure of writing the Zack Braff vehicle The Last Kiss, bodes well for the Canadian talent. Bill Condon was included in this category the last time he tailor-fit a beloved musical for the silver screen (and won here a few years before that too), so there is no reason to believe he will miss out this time around either. Another potential Best Picture nominee's writer, Scotland's Jeremy Brock, will surely be a major player in the next few months; he also has Driving Lessons out this year. Todd Field may get consolation votes here for Little Children - this is a category that sometimes accomodates films they may not embrace wholly (read: no Best Picture love.) Finally, Patrick Marber was snubbed almost two years ago for adapting his own Closer for the screen; maybe this time around, he will be luckier?

If The Good German enjoys some critical love, it could build buzz towards another mention for two-time nominee Paul Attanasio (both of his nods also in this category.) Ditto for the family dysfunction dramedy Running for Scissors by Ryan Murphy, which could make like Wes Anderson's The Royal Tenenbaums. Stage plays often do not make a big impression with Oscar, but Alan Bennett's smash hit The History Boys recently swept the 2006 Tonys and Drama Desk Awards. The film version is hitting screens just at the right moment. Can it repeat its theatrical reception with the filmy AMPAS? Josh Friedman's The Black Dahlia adaptation could make an impact, considering the novel's twisty material and De Palma's name behind it. Then the Nolan Brothers have a chance to aim for nomination #2 with The Prestige, a seemingly dark tale of magic and rivalry on the stage.

BTW, I know I said I wouldn't be touching on the tech categories, but I must quickly put in a word for Dick Pope's phenomenal work as D.P. on The Illusionist. It will probably be forgotten by the year's end, but this Mike Leigh favourite does some truly memorable work here. I don't think the film overall is quite at that high level, but I recommend a watch for some gorgeous shots and a solid Paul Giamatti performance.

"It's the hunger; the hunger for an alternative and the refusal to accept a life of unhappiness..."

If you've been paying attention during the last few weeks, you'll know that's one of the very few lines spoken in the chilly, impeccably-cut trailer for Todd Field's Little Children. I should know, because I've watched Kate Winslet reciting those words over twenty times at Apple's Quicktime website (other favorite previews on constant replay include Babel, Volver and The Fountain [teaser].) Thankfully, this procrastination has resulted in something productive: I've mustered enough excitement to try my hand at 2007 Oscar predictions. I rarely do them this early in the year, usually saving them for late November or so, but I want to keep track of how well I do in the long run. It is always fun to return to these posts months later and see how attuned you were to the buzz (or not.) It was a tricky affair, though, because this is the time of year that virtually anything is touted as a possible contender. Who knows if one hyped film eventually ends up riding the critics' love to glory à la Sideways, or crashes and burns like The Human Stain? You see the difficulty, I'm sure. Reception at Toronto will determine how things fare considerably, but until then, it's all picking what titles/names/projects seem noteworthy.

Now I don't think I need to remind you that I am just having fun here, and in no way do I profess to be a genius at forecasting AMPAS's voting trends. If you want that, I suggest Nathaniel, Kris and/or Sasha. In fact, to be perfectly honest, my guesswork has been rather shoddy the last few years. Some of my memorable slip-ups in recent times: predicting a total shut-out for Finding Neverland in 2005 (except a few technicals), and a win for Capote's Catherine Keener this year. Yikes. As well, I am sticking to the big eight categories (Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Supporting Actors, & Original/Adapted Screenplay.) I might do everything else soon, but right now I don't have the energy for that.

BEST PICTURE
1. Dreamgirls – Dreamworks
2. Flags of Our Fathers – Dreamworks/Warner Bros.
3. The Good Shepherd - Universal
4. The Last King of Scotland – Fox Searchlight
5. Bobby – The Weinstein Company
---
6. Catch a Fire – Focus Features
7. United 93 – Studio Canal/Universal
8. The Good German – Warner Bros.
9. Little Children – New Line Entertainment
10. Breaking and Entering – The Weinstein Company

You will notice that I have broken down the race into which studios are the major players behind the big titles this year. After all, what is the Best Picture race if not a pissing contest between all of Hollywood's major suits? This year, Dreamworks SKG is looking to dominate the shortlist this year with two of the biggest high-profile names. Dreamgirls is still months away, but unless it crumbles in a Memoirs of a Geisha-like fiasco (which it most likely will not), it nonetheless looks like the most popular kid on the playground. The twenty-minute showreel at Cannes, the small peeks released here and there, the glamour quotient - it has it all. Flags of Our Fathers is more difficult to pin down; although it looks like a sure thing in concept, the names attached are too familiar. Will this go the way of Cinderella Man, which featured recently-Oscared talents like Ron Howard, Russell Crowe and Renée Zellweger at the time of its release? Even though I can see a potential snub in the distance, I still say never bet against The Clint. The Good Shepherd is another hazy presence in the race, mostly because there has been so little released to the public. But the plot/setting/genre add up to the same ingredients that made A Beautiful Mind such a big success. CIA conspiracies? Domestic troubles? Cold War politics? Mmhm. The Last King of Scotland may seem like a strange choice, but it fits nicely into the mold of biopic (self-explanatory) + importance factor (genocide) + impersonation performance (Forest Whitaker as Idi Amin.) Finally, I'm throwing Bobby in there because I figure the Weinsteins have had a few years to get their act together and are likely planning a lavish push for the film. It has a ginormous cast, it is a period piece, and it pairs nicely along with Oliver Stone's JFK. How can they resist?

As for the rest, let me breeze through them as fast as I can. I want to predict Catch a Fire very badly, because Focus Features has been on a high lately; despite last year's disappointment, I'm sure they have set their sights on rectifying that wrong. United 93 has had something of a comeback in my eyes lately, because of two reasons: 1) the reaction to World Trade Center did not compare (critically, that is), and 2) the Greengrass film will be releasing tomorrow on DVD. It's not a sure thing by any means, but if the critics' groups rally behind it in December (I see a lot of Best Director citations), it's possible. Universal just has to get voters to watch it. The Good German looks pretty neat, although it's hard to imagine the Academy going for another austere black-and-white effort so soon after Clooney's film on McCarthyism last year. He also makes an appearance here, along with Cate Blanchett, both directed by Steven Soderbergh. The plot sounds pretty nifty, but why am I still not totally convinced? Not AMPAS's cup of tea? Meanwhile, Little Children may seem like a sure thing considering Todd Field's first film managed to get a nod in this same category back in 2002. However, the voters may not like the dark humour running throughout the picture, nor might they feel sympathy for two adulterers (even though The English Patient won buckets of gold almost ten years ago, that film about cheating was a romantic tragedy - this one is not.) Additionally, Breaking and Entering could factor in, namely because Minghella is working from his own script, and is supposedly tackling current issues (immigration, cultural divisions in London etc) this time around. It has a great cast, fine behind-the-scenes talent... may be worth keeping in mind.

BEST DIRECTOR
1. Bill Condon, Dreamgirls
2. Clint Eastwood, Flags of Our Fathers
3. Robert DeNiro, The Good Shepherd
4. Alejandro González Iñárritu, Babel
5. Paul Greengrass, United 93
---
6. Emilo Estevez, Bobby
7. Kevin MacDonald, The Last King of Scotland
8. Steven Soderbergh, The Good German
9. Todd Field, Little Children
10. Darren Aronofsky, The Fountain
10. Pedro Almodóvar, Volver

The first three can rest easy for now. For the same reasons stated above, the profile and love for their Christmas darlings will propel them to the nominees' luncheon in February. It's the the others that have some worrying to do. Although winning a prize from Cannes means absolutely nothing in terms of Oscar (The Pianist excepted), I still think the bolder voters in the Directors' branch will want to throw out a nod to recent prizewinner Iñárritu for his artsy-fartsy, attention whore gimmickry. Babel will be too grim and hard-hitting to garner any real steam for Best Picture, so I think this is the best chance for voters to acknowledge the film overall (not to mention nods for some of the actors; see below.) Paul Greengrass looks likely to take that fifth spot for United 93; even though the film may similarly be too disturbing for the overall voting body, the directors will give him some love for one of the best-reviewed films of 2006.

But don't count out Emilio Estevez for Bobby; the Academy's love for actor-turned-directors is well-documented. The sheer ambition of his project alone (managing that cast is approaching Altman-esque proportions) will keep his name up in the air if the film is embraced. MacDonald and Soderbergh may get pulled into the awards season steamroller if their films are positioned as Best Picture potentials, and ditto for Todd Field, who voters may feel is owed a nod because of his In the Bedroom snub. Similarly, Requiem for a Dream's Darren Aronofsky could be rewarded with attention if the über-mysterious The Fountain knocks his contemporaries' socks off. Finally, although Pedro seems over-rewarded (the Academy is rarely ever this generous with foreign talent, even if the personalities are genius), he could find himself in the running again after Talk to Her, this time for Volver. It has the best chance of any foreign-language film of breaking into other Oscar categories this year.

BEST ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
1. Helen Mirren, The Queen
2. Meryl Streep, The Devil Wears Prada
3. Kate Winslet, Little Children
4. Penélope Cruz, Volver
5. Nicole Kidman, Fur
---
6. Cate Blanchett, Notes on a Scandal
7. Beyoncé Knowles, Dreamgirls
8. Ashley Judd, Bug
9. Annette Bening, Running with Scissors
10. Gretchen Mol, The Notorious Bettie Page

I know, my predictions seem like an all-too-beautiful dream, especially in comparison to the horror of last year's crop. I just have one question to ask this year's contenders: where the hell were all of you last season, where this category was slim pickings? Anyways, moving on; no matter way you slice it, the first three seem likely to pick up nominations for their work this year. Mirren will be fresh in the minds of voters after winning the Emmy last month, and the reviews for her latest Elizabeth role in The Queen are scorching. Similarly, no one will be able to stop Meryl Streep from picking up her 14th nod as the title character in The Devil Wears Prada; everyone wants her to, so it's smooth sailing from here. Besides those two likely "locks", Kate Winslet can look forward her fifth nomination for Little Children; she could even win this one (she *does* fit the babe trend the Academy seems to be stuck on lately.) It seems like the right time for her, unless they really want to hand a statuette to Helen Mirren, who only has half the noms that Kate does. But then again, voters don't really work like that, do they? As for Penélope Cruz, this may be wishful thinking, but the ones who have already watched the film are raving about her work. Cecilia Roth did not get through in the year of All About My Mother, true, but Cruz already has the star wattage and babe factor in her favour. They know who she is already. As well, nominated roles in foreign language are not as rare as one might think: Javier Bardem, Catalina Sandino Moreno, and Benicio Del Toro all got nods for non-English performances in the past few years. It's not out of the question, and it is Almodóvar after all. Finally, I think Nicole Kidman will be invited back after an Oscar sabbatical for her much-talked-about role in Fur. And from the looks of the bizzaro, off-the-wall trailer, I'm already beginning my FYC campaign for her. But since this category is really competitive this year, Cruz and Kidman could easily be overlooked by these following actors ...

Cate Blanchett might be directed to her third nomination by Richard Eyre for Notes on a Scandal, because she's always on-key, no matter the character/film. And after all, Eyre got three actors from Iris into the final mix in 2002; then again, it may be too soon after her Aviator triumph? Beyoncé will be in the running for obvious reasons, and since Dreamgirls will be a juggernaut in practically every race, she is a very likely nominee. As for the deglam entry, Ashley Judd tries to break out of her thriller rut (Twisted, High Crimes, Double Jeopardy) with Bug, adapted from the acclaimed play by Tracey Letts. With William Friedkin helming the picture, good reviews could catapult her into the realm of "serious actor". As much as I love Annette Bening, I think this high-wire, intense nutso role will be too much, too soon for AMPAS. I'm thinking snub, especially if Running with Scissors peaks too early. Last but not least, Gretchen Mol picked up some glowing notices for her Bettie Page channeling earlier this year; could a Golden Globe nod in the Comedy/Musical category help boost her profile?

BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
1. Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland
2. Richard Gere, The Hoax
3. Brad Pitt, Babel
4. Matt Damon, The Good Shepherd
5. Derek Luke, Catch a Fire
---
6. Will Smith, The Pursuit of Happyness
7. Patrick Wilson, Little Children
8. Jude Law, Breaking and Entering
9. Ed Harris, Copying Beethoven
10. Hugh Jackman, The Fountain

The actor with the best chance, to me, is Forest Whitaker in The Last King of Scotland; he has all the cards in his favour. If three out of the last six Best Actor winners have played real-life figures, how can this go wrong for Whitaker in any respect? As for Richard Gere, he is not a typical choice, but early word-of-mouth on his Hoax perf is very good. He's never been nominated, and this role as a dishonest writer could be the one that gets him an overall career acknowledgment. The voters probably still feel very guilty about the Chicago snub, considering practically everyone else in that cast was mentioned. The Hoax, directed by Lasse Hallström, does not have a release date yet, but it is tipped to appear by the year's end. Meanwhile, Brad Pitt may still have many people holding the Brangelina tabloid history against him, but Babel seems like a good showcase for his dramatic side. The fact that he has been nominated before only helps in this regard - he can be taken seriously. Babel's Iñárritu directed two of his 21 Grams actors to nods a couple of years ago, and you can bet that had Sean Penn not been in Mystic River that year, he would have been nominated for that performance. His friend Matt Damon also seems ripe for his second acting nod, and The Good Shepherd (a likely Best Picture nominee) looks like his vehicle. Catch a Fire's Derek Luke could be looking at his first nomination next year; the young actor is the right age (thirty-two), and he has the perfect role (anti-Apartheid freedom fighter) in a prestige flick. After Antwone Fisher got him several great notices in 2003 (as well as an Independent Spirit Award for Best Actor), I think he's ready for a bigger breakout.

Don't count out Patrick Wilson though, who could find himself nominated opposite his Little Children co-star in an In the Bedroom-like situation. But does anyone know who he is in Hollywood? It's time Will Smith wants to be taken seriously again (ick), and so he's upped the feel-good factor in The Pursuit of Happyness. I hope the film doesn't sink as low as the trailer does in an effort to draw tears; either way, you never know with the Academy's taste (see sobfest Finding Neverland.) Jude Law will likely be amazing in Breaking and Entering (he's re-teaming with Anthony Minghella, who has led him to both his two nods), but has the backlash calmed yet? Ed Harris is regularly up for the award every few years, and it could be that time again with him playing Beethoven in the composer's final months; however, the small film will need great buzz/reviews to push him up there. As for Hugh Jackman, perhaps his work in either The Fountain or The Prestige (although it sounds like he has gone further emotionally in the former) will convince Hollywood that there is more to him than Wolverine.

Click here to continue with Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, and Adapted Screenplay...

Sigh of Relief

Well...

That was one-and-a-half days of utter and total torture that I have no desire to re-live. After clicking "Reload" on my inbox approximately one hundred times throughout the entire weekend and hearing about fellow festival goers crowe about scoring their first choices, I finally received a confirmation from the the TIFF box-office at 9:30pm this evening. Dreading the worst case scenario (like, say, receiving twenty-plus blank tickets), I initially peered at the results with tremendous apprehension. Overall? I was freaking out over nothing. True, I didn't make it into Kim's Time, Maddin's Brand Upon the Brain!, Almodóvar's Volver, Inarritu's Babel, Field's Little Children, Mitchell's Shortbus, and Aronofsky's The Fountain, but matters could be much, much worse. And considering I was in the second-last box opened and still managed to obtain several first-choices, I am a thankful son-of-a-gun tonight. Plus, I will still be "rushing" several of those films above (I am hopeful for Almodóvar and Mitchell especially), although it looks like I might have to skip two of my most anticipated films of the year - the Field and Aronofsky features. It sucks, but at least they'll be releasing in the next few months. The world has bigger problems than me not seeing studio pictures a couple of weeks early.

I'm not letting the disappointment of feeling those losses dull my excitement for films I will be seeing early like The Namesake (!!!), Breaking and Entering (by Anthony Minghella), Pan's Labyrinth (del Toro's next that has critics swooning), Rescue Dawn (by Werner Herzog), and The Fall (by Tarsem Singh, who pretty much re-defined eye candy with 2000's The Cell.) That's not mentioning the works by Branagh, Loach, Tsai, Panahi, Weerasethakul... That's a pretty damn good roster for coming in practically last in the advance draw.

Check out the list to the side to see the entire list, which I will be updating with grades throughout the fest. That is in addition to reviews, pictures, and other random observations about TIFF 2006.

Stay tuned...

*Insert Sad Icon Here*

I just learned that the random draw has dictated that my envolope of festival selections will be processed after thirty-nine boxes of orders have had priority. I'm likely getting 2 or 3 of my selections, if I'm lucky. I'll be in mourning if anyone needs me.

Trauma-Rama

Everytime I step out of a shopping mall, fully exhausted and miserable, I vow never to return there again... but this time I actually (mostly) mean it. Admittedly, I never have good shopping experiences in tightly-closed areas with mass crowds of overstimulated teenagers and adolescents (who does?), but my experience yesterday at a downtown mall feels like the straw that broke the camel's back. Me being the exasperated camel, of course. As I moved from store to store, it seemed like things were getting progressively worse.

But before I get to that, let me backtrack a bit. For two years, I worked at the mall in my neighborhood, and that time marked a point in my life when I really began to think critically of what these spaces mean, and what they are geared towards doing. It is a building where individuals are presented with a certain exaggerated lifestyle ideal (whether in terms of fashion, physical appearance, home decor, etc) and then expected to live up this unachievable standard by purchasing things that will apparently help them project that sense of image and self-worth. That may be oversimplifying the matter, but this is what shopping malls seem geared towards encouraging. Walk into one on a Saturday afternoon, and you'll know exactly what I mean. In my case, over the years I was an employee at American Eagle, I watched so many preteen girls come into the store, try on clothes completely inappropriate for their age, and then either leave on a high (with bagfuls of new threads) or utterly defeated ("I'm hideous.") I've witnessed people's self-regard plummet, and to fill that gaping hole, more products are amassed to help heal the wounds. I've talked to overworked, unhappy mothers who confessed to visiting the place daily because the excursions distracted them from the loneliness they experienced at home. Work just became depressing for me, having to then push sales and promotions that I thought were ridiculous in the first place. I loved working with my fellow employees and managers, but the company's policies were growing increasingly ridiculous. Not long after, my investment in perpetuating these problematic ideas diminished; I simply could not continue "buying" into this any longer.

This may all seem very obvious to most of you, and surely many people who spend their weekends shopping or hanging out at malls are aware of these issues. And I'm not immune from this; I clearly buy objects, and I do engage in it regularly. Almost always, I find myself stuck in that same cycle of feeling terrible, because I cannot approximate an ideal (in whatever way.) Even so, I find myself growing more and more frustrated with how this culture becomes so obsessed with consummerism. My day yesterday just drove home my dislikes about the whole shopping experience:

On Friday, I commute into the city to drop off my film festival order to participate in the advance draw. As orders are ready on Monday morning, I decide to kill time around the city before heading back to my place. Because the Eaton Centre (a sprawling indoor concourse) is in the area, I decide to look at some clothes for the new school year. The first store I go to is Old Navy, which unsurprisingly offers nothing appealing. While I am looking at some jeans, this twenty-something guy makes eye contact and proceeds to ask me where he can find more woven shirts. It takes me a second to understand why he has approached me, and I hurriedly answer "Sorry, I don't work here." Embarrassed, he apologizes and ventures off, but not before adding "You look like you do." It is not meant as a putdown, because he is genuinely confused, but I still leave in a foul mood because, 1) I don't at all like the idea of being mistaken as an Old Navy employee; and 2) even if I do look like one, he still shouldn't have said anything, the stupid ass. And I'm not even wearing anything from that store!

Things didn't get much better at Mexx, which is empty when I walk in except for two overeager store employees. As soon as the man offers a greeting, I know it will be one of those situations were I will be followed relentlessly. "Hello, how are you?", he asks, and I say "Fine thanks, yourself..." The usual banter. Then, "If there's anything you need, please let me know." Okay, fine. Not three seconds later, "Are you looking for anything in particular?" I manage a polite smile and decline, "Just browsing." Another five seconds later, I'm looking at a sweater on a hanger; he interrupts, "If you like sweaters, then you'll like these." Intrigued to see how bad this will get, I follow him half-heartedly to a table with thin-knitted sweaters that look nothing like the one I was checking out. He explains the fabric on two of them, and then actually starts to give me cleaning instructions (!) as if I had decided to buy them already (!!). He matches them with striped button-up shirts and says how great I would look with all four articles. "Do you want to take them all?"... I hold my breath for about five seconds, then: "I think I'll look around some more, thanks." As soon as his back is turned, I fly out of there.

Okay, have already been mistaken for Old Navy employee and then harassed by very pushy Mexx sales associate. Can things get wose? Apparently, they can. Stupidly, I have the strange morbid desire to check out the newly-opened Abercrombie and Fitch, which is something of a novelty for Canadian consumers (this is the first one that has opened in the country, apparently.) Immediately, I am greeted with a eight-foot black-and-white poster of a toned, shirtless lad posing for the camera. The great paradox of their marketing to me is why all their models simply pose nude despite the fact that their company sells clothes. But moving on... trying to navigate my way through the narrow walkways is difficult, because the light is so dim. I bump into about three people before stopping to check out the price tags on some rugby shirts. $89. If I were going to spend that kind of money, I think I'd rather invest it in a dress jacket or formal wear, not on something that will look five years old after I wash it once. Aha! Now I've discovered their secret: I am convinced that the Abercrombie and Hollister stores are so poorly-lit because they don't want you to see how laughable their prices are. I am brilliant, I am. But my high does not last for long, as the store begins to hold full capacity; customers are dartling left and right. The lineup at the cash register sprawls around the store, and it grows longer by the minute. I am surrounded by robotic-like young adults, their bodies twisted and mutated into the very models shown on the walls. They're everywhere! I grow panicky. Something here isn't quite like the other ones, someone here doesn't quite belong... I push and shove my way out of the abode, vowing never to do that again.

So after that disturbing encounter with the cast of "Laguna Beach", I decided to cut my shopping day short. I speedwalk to the bus terminal and anxiously await my ride home; there, I'll throw on a ratty, old t-shirt, pull on pajama pants, and do some reading. At the end of it all, I only walked out with a pair of stone-grey corduroy pants from H&M, and even then, I'm not 100% sure about them. I'd return them, but I'm afraid of venturing into that place again. I guess what I've learned from this all is that putting myself in a situation where I always leave feeling worse about myself is not a healthy one. I know I have enough control not to plan another one of these outings, but I'm afraid what will happen once the holiday season comes around the corner. Will I be able to avoid the stores then? On-line purchasing, here I come!

Share your embarrassing shopping stories, folks.

Thoughts on Toronto

I thought I would refrain from talking about the upcoming film festival in Toronto for a few days, precisely because I still have no idea what I'm going to see. I can speak endlessly about my anticipation for the new Kim Ki-Duk or Werner Herzog films, but what is the point if nothing is for sure yet? But then again, this does not prohibit me from talking about what I would like to see, even if first dibs end up going to other people. The system works like this: if you've bought coupon booklets way in advance (like I did), you get a primary round to make your selections before the public can buy individual tickets. Your picks are then placed in a random draw; how well you do here can greatly influence whether you have a fantastic time (i.e. you get all your first choices) or a miserable one (you get one or two.) So until advance draws begin late next week, I have no idea whether I'll be able to see everything I want to. If all else fails, I can definitely resort to deperate measures and join rush lineups outside the theater. I've had good luck before (getting into "sold out" screenings such as Dogville, Brokeback Mountain, etc.)

Right now, I have the festival programme and order booklet in front of me, trying to choose from a wealth of potential treasures. It is frustrating, because sometimes a film fits into your schedule, but begins across town exactly at the time another of your choices finishes. It's tricky trying to factor in commuting, director/programmer intros, question and answer sessions, delays, etc.) I remember two years ago, a screening of The Machinist (which was supposed to begin at midnight) was pushed back for an hour-and-a-half. It was about three in the morning when we were let out.

As always, the programmers have done a fantastic job picking and choosing the most high-profile (as well as the hard-to-find) titles enjoying buzz right now. We have everything from Oscar bait (All the King's Men) to foreign extractions. Surprisingly, David Lynch's Inland Empire failed to make an appearance on the film list, which is strange considering Mulholland Dr. had its North American premiere here. Strange anomalies like this show up from time to time. More missing from the slate: Marie Antoinette, Hollywoodland, Children of Men and The Black Dahlia.

I know for sure that Volver, The Fountain, Little Children, Offside (Jafar Panahi), Time (Kim), Syndromes and a Century (Apichatpong Weerasethakul), Jindabyne (on Glenn's recommendation), and The Magic Flute (Kenneth Branagh) are musts right now (even though some are slated to open not long after in the Toronto market.) I know I could potentially wait for something like, say, Little Children which opens in October, but I don't think I'll have the willpower. Plus, if I get to see Kate Winslet in person, that is worth every extra penny on the ticket. I'm also adamant on making a screening of Mira Nair's The Namesake; many of you know I have been waiting to see this more than a year. However, the situation has changed: the release date has moved from this November to March of 2007. I'm scared this will become one of those films that keeps getting pushed back until everyone has lost interest - Nair needs excellent reviews here to ensure Fox is 100% behind the film.

Sadly, I won't be able to make For Your Consideration, which is playing at inconvenient times (read: I have class - sucks, yeah.) In an interesting bit of trivia, the film is an hour and thirteen minutes long! That's almost shockingly brief - what's the idea, Chris? Usually his films have extra footage galore, but apparently not here. Also sadly missing out on I Don't Want to Sleep Alone (Tsai Ming-liang, director of The Wayward Cloud, the best film you will never see this year), The Journals of Knud Rasmussen (Zacharius Kunuk, Norman Cohn), Manufactured Landscapes (Jennifer Baichwal), A Few Days Later... (Niki Karimi), After the Wedding (Susanne Bier) and so many more.

Anyways, here is a tentative list of what I am hoping for; in any case, I will update on Monday about what I will be seeing for sure.

The Magic Flute (Kenneth Branagh)
The Wind That Shakes the Barley (Ken Loach)
Big Bang Love, Juvenile A (Takashi Miike)
Time (Kim Ki-Duk)
Brand Upon the Brain! (Guy Maddin)
Volver (Pedro Almodóvar)
Penelope (Mark Palansky)
The Fall (Tarsem Singh)
Stranger Than Fiction (Marc Forster)
Babel (Alejandro González Iñárritu)
Pan's Labyrinth (Guillermo Del Toro)
Offside (Jafar Panahi)
Little Children (Todd Field)
The Last King of Scotland (Kevin MacDonald)
Shortbus (John Cameron Mitchell)
The Fountain (Darren Aronofsky)
The Namesake (Mira Nair)
Starter For Ten (Tom Vaughan)
Breaking and Entering (Anthony Minghella)
Bobby (Emilio Estevez)
Infamous (Patrick McGrath)
Jindabyne (Ray Lawrence)
Syndromes and a Century (Apichatpong Weerasethakul)
To Get to Heaven First You Have to Die (Jamshed Usmonov)
Times and Winds (Reha Erdem)
Cashback (Sean Ellis)
Rescue Dawn (Werner Herzog)
Outsourced (John Jeffcoat)

EDIT: I also have the option of "wasting" a ticket on an evening with Michael Moore, who will discuss his filmography and show sneak peeks of Sicko. What do you all think?
EDIT 2: Made some slight changes to the list here and there... Sorry, because Blogger is on crack and decided to be difficult about html tags (wtf?), all your comments were deleted. To respond: I wish all of you were coming too, and I will be updating as much as possible with capsule reviews, grades, pictures and other gushy celebrity gossip.