It is the day after Midnight Madness and the post fest blues are setting in. Being in the film festival world is a crazy and surreal world. For ten days I get to embrace my obsession and meet many others who share the same obsession in film.

Q: What made you choose to to get involved with Coopers Camera?
Dee: "Well I knew Warren [Sonoda], the director from working with him in music videos. When he asked me if I wanted to work with him again, of course the answer was yes!"

Q: So Coopers Camera...what would you say was your inspiration for hair and make-up in the film?
Dee: "My inspiration was 1985. When I first got the script and read it...the opening page said: Christmas, December 25th, 1985. I was able to start picturing the characters and it went from there."

Q: What did 1985 mean for you in  terms of hair and make-up, and does that transpire in the film?
Dee: "Yea, I guess so. When I think of 1985, I think of the big hair, the make-up was very crazy at the time...it was never about being subtle. Also remembering that once you read the script, you start understanding where these people are coming from and who these characters are. From there you are able to base looks and pull from that era. Knowing that there is a teenage girl, Heather....knowing that she is around 16-17. Obviously she's gonna be a little fashion forward when it comes to the hair. Where as Samantha B's character, Nancy Cooper, obviously her make-up is not gonna be so avant-garde."

Q: What is your favourite 80's trend, and did any of the characters have this trend? {Dee laughs cheekily and looks at me. I know this look}
Dee: "My favourite look would probobly have to be...the big hair!" {more laughter expels}"You know me, you know that I love my hair REAL big. I made sure that any of the women had big hair."

Q: How did you and the stylist ensure that the overall look came together for these characters?
Dee: "Actually the stylist, Laura Montgomery, who is amazing...this was our first time working together. We each got a copy of the script and from there, you know, when you get a script you have to break it down by character, by day, beforehand. Then we got together for the wardrobe fitting and met the cast and I saw what Laura had pulled. Seeing the actors, and doing the read-through, and then looking at the wardrobe, I began to piece together what these characters sense of style was."

Q: Who would you say was your favourite character look to put together in Coopers Camera?
Dee: "Everyone looks amazing. But for a mans character, it was Mike Beavers character, Uncle Nicky. With Mike we sat down and Mike brought a nice handlebar mustache to me on the day. He asked me what I thought, I loved it...and then talking to him I said that said, I have hair extensions - I'm gonna give you a mullet! This is Canada...1985. Mullets, were everywhere! You actually could not get around them. For a woman, my favourite look would probably have to be Heather. Simply because I pulled her from my cousin. I remember sitting there and watching her tweeze her bangs and put on frosted pink lipstick.
I say, "Well I guess we all make mistakes in our past."

Q: What is your tip for us to set aloud a blazing 80's look?!
Dee: "#1: you need to have blue eyeliner and electric blue eye shadow. #2: you need to have a nice brick coloured blush. Don't be shy about putting it on. #3: you need a frosted pink lipstick and a can of aquanet. Dude, back-comb, tease the big Flock of Seagulls thing. AND don't forget your crimper!"

Good times kids - the 80's equals good times. I encourage those who go see Coopers Camera to bring their best look to the theatre and battle it out! No crimpers should be used as weapons.

 

Last night was a total party for anyone that loves B-movies. Not Quite Hollywood introduced and re-introduced the slavering Midnight Madness audience to some of the most ostentatious films in the Australian industry's history.

For me, it was wonderful meeting all of the directors last night - especially  Brian Trenchard-Smith, who I found out directed my third-favourite Leprechaun movie, Leprechaun 4: In Space!! I have met a couple of personalities in my time volunteering at TIFF, but I don't think I've ever been so starstruck.  This is the man who read a script about a FREAKING LEPRECHAUN IN FREAKING SPACE and said to himself 'hi-yo! There's the project for me!'  (it should be noted that he also made Leprechaun 3 in which our Irish friend inexplicably finds himself in Vegas) Going through his resume on imdb, I also discovered that Trenchard-Smith apparently, made a movie about 9/11 starring George Takei!! How awesome is that?!

Check out some more of our intrepid photographer Ian Goring's pics, right from the red carpet and the Q&A!

I think I am with the majority of the audience in attendance at JCVD last night in saying that I was shocked. Not in your normal Midnight Madness sense, of course, where you may be shocked at the sheer amount of corn syrup being sprayed around or the number of fingers severed from someone's hand before you have to look away, but by an actual emotional performance. An emotional  performance by Jean-Claude Van Damme, no less.

What we saw last night was probably one of the most honest performances we're likely to see at this Festival. Van Damme leaves every bit of himself onscreen. His entire life - every problem, every breakdown. You are privy to his confessional, and it all feels very surreal. Director   Mabrouk El Mechri described Van Damme's input into the film as having "his own music". Almost poetic, huh?

See, JCVD isn't a documentary and it isn't fiction. It's somewhere in between. People are comparing it to Being John Malkovitch, but I think it's much closer to Charlie Kaufman's Adaptation than anything else. Here, Van Damme plays - and is very aware of ? himself. He is placed in a highly surreal (and fictional) situation that hinges on his own celebrity. During all of this, we are privy to Van Damme's scenes that depict his innermost thoughts on his real life ? drug abuse, his custody battle, and the culture of celebrity and the way it can build you up only to tear you down.

Now on the surface, the oh-so-hard world of being a celebrity isn't exactly treading new ground - what with the Britneys, Lindsays, and Sarah Palins of the world harping on it at every opportunity. But unlike these (especially the latter), Van Damme is a sympathetic character. Easily the most striking moment of the film comes when these thoughts are communicated directly to the camera in a powerful soliloquy. This speech rocked me to my foundations. and I can already tell that it will earn a place in my top Midnight Madness moments of all time.  Who knew that the star of Lionheart and The Quest could actually ACT? Is it because it is easier to emote in one's native tongue? Is it genuine catharsis?  Seeing the man who jumpkicked Chong Li square in the face in Bloodsport reduced to tears is, in a way, like watching your father cry. This person that you thought to be invincible shows a vulnerability that makes you question your own strength.

What doubles the impact (pun COMPLETELY intended) of this and his other scenes is the fact that many of Van Damme's lines (including the soliloquy),  according to El Mechri, are ad-libbed. This is Van Damme speaking from the heart, as though he has been waiting for years to get these thoughts out (kinda hard to do in Universal Soldier 12). It was made very clear during the Q&A that Van Damme is completely genuine here, and the El Mechri allows him to go where he wants to. This is the mark of a great director. To allow one's actors to hear, and play, their own music.

photos by Ian Goring

Tuesday night, September 11, the world premiere of Body of War took place. The film, a project directed by Ellen Spiro and Phil Donahue, is the story of Iraq war veteran Tomas Young.  This young man was shot after having been in Iraq a mere five weeks; the bullet wound left him paralysed from the neck down. During the film, the audience was full of emotion.  The film is powerful; there is no other way to describe it.  Tomas was very candid about his situation and how his decision to enlist, being shot in Iraq and the war have completely changed his life, his politics and his sense of who he is.

We get to see Tomas become a young veteran activist against the war in Iraq. Along with footage of Tomas's journeys to several anti-war protests, services to honour him, and his daily struggles, Spiro mixes clips from the voting for/against the war on C-SPAN and clips from various news channels.  There were times throughout the film where everyone gasped due to the difficulties Tomas has to deal with; for example, loss of control of basic bodily functions.  As well, Tomas is very open about his feelings; he states " I cry uncontrollaby sometimes when my body shows me how in disagreement it is with me; other times, it is when I see people walking down the street.  I'm jealous of people who can walk."  Seeing Tomas' resilience juxtaposed with clips from the news showing the scare tactics used by the American government became an effective means to make the point that this war has perhaps gotten too much out of control.

After the screening,  Tomas Young  appeared on stage, along with mother and father, and the film team who had watched the documentary with the audience.  The response was a standing ovation.  Young said a few words to express his gratitude and a few minutes after, Eddie Vedder came to the stage to sing a couple of songs he'd written specifically for this film. The audience roared again and joined in the singing "No More War."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ00ck1vvrA

This film still needs a distributor.  Once it gets picked up, there is no doubt it will generate a lot of controversy.  The hope is to reach a wide audience and get them to think about the troubles war brings.

Body of War is screening for the last time on Saturday. Check out the link for times and location.

Dalton Trumbo is now well-known for several award-winning screenplays. In Trumbo, director Peter Askin (pictured here) took on the challenge of making a documentary about this famous, once blacklisted writer.

The film, however, is not about being blacklisted per se.  It is about the life, the work and the family man behind this infamous name.  Askin combines footage from family videos, clips from movies in which Trumbo worked and clips of many actors portraying Trumbo's letters.  The effect is a complex yet intimate portrayal of Trumbo's story.

During the Q&A session, Askin asked Donald Sutherland and Trumbo's children, Chris and Mitzy, to join him.  Sutherland had known Trumbo for a number of years.  Chris Trumbo is an accomplished writer; he has written a lot about his father.  When discussing his choice of actors to read Trumbo's letters, Askin stated that some actors approached him.  The letters were the basis of the play Trumbo; some of these actors had been in the play.

As a father, Chris said that all children had a childhood that "was as normal as can be."  They never felt their parents were concealing information from them.  They are in support of this film and are content with the outcome. 

Last night, some of us were introduced to the life story of publisher Barney Rosset in the documentary Obscene.  Rosset was the creator of Grove Press which brought many important works to America, like Waiting for Godot, Naked Lunch, The Diary of Che Guevarra and The Autobiography of Malcolm X. 

Directors Neil Ortenberg and Daniel O?Connor (pictured here) take us on a journey through archived footage of Rosset's radio and television interviews along with family videos and interviews with Rosset today.  His life is nothing short of amazing; he experienced a lot of ups and downs in his personal and professional life.  What is most amazing in the film is the amount of literary works Rosset help launch.  Many of us have read some of these books not realising how much of a battle it was to have them published here in North America, since some of these writers had been banned in the USA. 

In the 1970's the US government launched Operation Chaos. There were FBI files on Grove Press and Rosset himself.  There were break-ins at his house and at the office.  During the Q&A session after the screening, someone in the audience asked how Rosset fares today.  We learned in the film that he had to sell Grove Press, shortly after that he got fired and to make matters worse, he had to sell all his properties in the East Hamptons.  The directors mentioned that Rosset is now broke.  He lives in a loft with his fifth wife and has been unable to pay rent for the last two years.  Hard to believe since this man was at the top of his profession.

Both directors come from the publishing world; thus, their interest in making this film.  They "felt that Barney was a flawed hero."  This project was "an opportunity to jump into something that we felt passionate about; a subject we knew intimately."  In my opinion, this was a story well worth the time and research.  

A year ago Bonnie Fairweather was living in Edmonton.  If you?d told her she?d have a film entered at TIFF this year as writer of Burgeon and Fade (part of Short Cuts Canada Programme 5), she would have considered it a cruel joke.  It?s been an amazing one-year journey for Fairweather, a recent Canadian Film Centre grad, so I caught up with her for the details.  Wannabe writers and filmmakers take note:

 

MS: Where did you growup?  How old are you?

 

BF: I?m from Edmonton and I?ve lived there all my life until last year.  I?m 28.

 

MS: Where did you attend University?

 

BF: University of Alberta for education.

 

MS: Was a career in film, or a career as a writer always in the cards for you?

 

BF: I?ve been writing screenplays since I was 15 years old, although they weren?t very good, but it?s always been something I really loved and felt passionate about, but growing up in Alberta it didn?t seem like a realistic career path, there were not a lot of screenwriters that I met there. (laughs)

 

MS: When did you move to Toronto?

 

BF: Last July, when I was accepted into the Canadian Film Centre.  I applied in 2003, and I didn?t get in.  So I kept writing and trying to improve my craft, I re-applied in 2006, they get over 200 applications then take eight writers.  So I flew to Vancouver and interviewed, and I thought it went terribly wrong, but I guess they liked me.

 

MS: Do you have an agent? How long did it take to get one?

 

BF: I got an agent after the program, about three months after. It?s hard because you make friends with everyone in the writers program, then you all graduate and you?re all clamoring to find an agent.  There are only so many open spots, and you want to find someone who?s a good fit for you as well.  Some of the agents from the Film Centre that said they?d meet with you are too busy, or aren?t willing to read your stuff.  You?re competing with your fellow writers, but everyone else.  Agents are busy and in the spring for TV hiring season it was hard to get a meeting.  So I felt very privileged to get an agent who was my top choice and a good fit.

 

MS: Describe your time at the Canadian Film Centre

 

BF: It?s a five month program, but it?s very intensive, you can?t work during that period, you?re there seven days a week.  We did a lot of production exercises, collaborated with directors, producers and editors who were students there, and working on feature screenplays and work-shopping them and making them better and better and ready to go out to agents.

 

MS: How many scripts did you write before Burgeon and Fade?

 

BF: I?ve done a few shorts when I lived in Edmonton which were work-shopped through the National Screen Institute with very low budgets.

 

MS: What inspired you to write a film like Burgeon and Fade?

 

BF: I love writing stuff that really happens, that?s based in reality. I really like exploring family relationships, it seems like an interesting premise: an aging woman living in the same house with a daughter coming into her own sexually, that it would be an interesting conflict. 

 

MS: What sort of process was involved in getting it made?  Were you surprised?

 

BF: I had pitched the idea to a few directors.  Then Audrey Cummings really responded to the idea.  We started shaping the idea.  We were both very excited, so we did a rough draft script and others looked at it and liked it.  So we submitted it to the Film Centre and they chose it as one of five shorts they made in January.  We felt really lucky to get one of those five spots, shoot something on film, workshop it at the film centre.  It was an awesome process for us.

 

MS: Did you expect to have a film entered in TIFF at 28-years-old?

 

BF: It would have blown my mind even a year ago.  When I was making my year plan last year at the Film Centre I would have never believed I?d have a film at TIFF.  It has exceeded my expectations.  It?s pretty amazing.

 

MS: What?s it feel like to be a first-time TIFF contributor?

 

BF: I haven?t been to any TIFF things yet.  I haven?t had a change to experience it yet.  The directors and producers get a pass but until I see it on Tuesday I don?t think it will sink in.

The documentary My Kid Could Paint That just screened this afternoon at the Scotiabank theatre.  Director Amir Bar-Lev (pictured right) introduces us to Marla Olmstead; a four year old girl whose paintings cause a stir in the media. 

It started with a story written by a local journalist in the local newspaper.  Soon after, the New York Times gets a lead on this story and posts its own.  Almost overnight, Marla is sensationalized as a child prodigy by some, although her mother (Laura) dislikes the phrase child prodigy. 

Mark Olmstead (Marla's father) is thrilled by the media attention; as is, Gallery owner and artist, Anthony Brunelli, who basically represents Marla and aids in selling her art pieces.  As the film progresses, the story takes a turn.  The media frenzy seems to create more chaos in the life of this young family. The news program 60 Minutes airs a story that depicts Marla's works as not her own.  The show even suggests that maybe her father is the one who created the initial paintings.  Here is where the director comes to a difficult moment in the film, since he also becomes dubious of Marla's artistic ability.  Subsequently, this becomes a film about the family as a whole; including the parents' involvement in Marla's career as an artist.  Through the film, the director also tries to include their son Zane, who is also a very smart child and perhaps all too aware of the situation around him; even though he is only two years old at the time the film was made.

The film does not offer a straight answer.  I think the director wants the audience to make its own decision about the family and whether or not Marla's paintings are in fact the real deal.

During the Q&A session Amir Bar-Lev mentioned that at first, his intention for making this documentary was to "draw attention to the process of painting." He stated that Marla's parents have seen the end-product and are not so happy with the outcome. As Bar-Lev said, "we agree to disagree."  This documentary will be released on October 5th, 2007.

Last night was the opening screening for Scott Hicks's documentary Glass: A portrait of Philip in twelve parts.  The director took time to introduce the film, which is a very intimate look at the life of prolific composer Philip Glass. The composer turns 70 this year; thus, this is quite the honour to bestow on such occasion.

The feel throughout the film is that of a private conversation.  Hicks takes us through Glass' typical day at work, his vacation home in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia; he even takes us on tour with him and his musical ensemble. We come to know Glass through his friends, his wife (Holly Glass), his siblings and of course, through his music.  The film is filled with Glass's compostions; thus making it melodic and even more personal.  It is indeed a film that inspires.  In the film, we see Glass discuss his love of music. He states, "music is about listening."  We also get a sense of his obsession with his work through his wife's comments.  She mentions that music is how Glass communicates his most private feelings.  Holly herself shares her feelings with the director and through him, with the audience.  We get the sense that there is a kind of sadness in her because Glass is very unavailabe due to his work.  Nonetheless, theres is a deep love shared between the two. 

Hicks also introduces us to several of Philip's friends and collaborators.  Glass is a man who likes to work on his music alone but loves to share in the creative process.  He embraces different forms of music from different cultures.  In his own life, Glass also has embraced tibetan, toltec and other faiths.  This is how he achieves balance in his life.  Perhaps this is why he creates such amazing music.

After the screening, Hicks answered some of the audience's questions.  He described how through the film, we see that "Philip turns out to be a man of many surprises." Hicks also said that Glass would lay out clues for him, so that he could investigate parts of his life more thoroughly. When asked about his music selections, Hicks said that the music was to resonate with the scene at hand. 

Reel to Reel programmer Thom Powers reminded us that Hicks shot most of the film himself.  To address this Hicks explained that "Philip was starting a dialogue with me, or the camera.  [Thus] that was the film I was making."  It is evident that Glass and Hicks are very good friends.  There is no other way to describe how this film came to be.  It was a great way to end the day.

Today's screening of Joy Division certainly leaves you feeling various emotions.  The film, directed by Grant Gee (pictured here), describes the forming of the band, its history and that of its band members, especially lead singer Ian Curtis.

Curtis is central to this film.  His lyrics were fueled by the economic state of where he lived and had grown up, Manchester, England.  Curtis's words also make mention of his anguish and emotional pain.  Throughout the film, Gee juxtaposes interviews -- with the band members, former producers, friends and in the case of Curtis, his lover Annik Honore-- with the band's music and also digitalized images of archived concert footage. The images and words certainly create the tone and mood of the film. 

As it is well known, Curtis committed suicide in May of 1980 just before the band was set to go on its North American tour.  The surviving members discuss how it was years after the fact that they realised how much Curtis was suffering.  After Curtis's death, the remaining members formed New Order; a band that became very successful in England and abroad in 1980's.

In the Q&A session after the screening, the director mentioned that his main inspiration in telling this story was his love for the music. He described how it was "something special, the music was perfect."  Through this film, you will certainly experience these feelings and more. 

Someone asked Gee why no one tried to help Curtis deal with his emotional suffering.  His answer was: "England in the 1970's was a very different place emotionally. ...In working class culture, people didn't talk about feelings."  The band certainly came from this part of society, which explains their music and Curtis's lyrics. It was unfortunate that such talent was lost but Curtis certainly left us many words to remember him by.

Schroeder's film Terror's Advocate had its North American premiere today. The director was unable attend the festival but here is an insightful interview by David D'Arcy. 

In the interview, D'Arcy decribes that: "Schroeder knows monsters when he sees them. He has made films about Idi Amin and Klaus von Bulow, and the director admits that Verges's clients are even more monstrous. His film is an interview with Verges, who can talk his way into and around any subject, in a French that seems to have been refined in the best schools. Verges is a product of the best education that France could provide, and he has used it against France ever since."

If you are interested in finding more about the filmmaker and his reasons for making this documentary, I certainly recomment this interview. Be reminded as well that we'd love to hear what you think of this film and any other documentaries you're seeing at the festival.

In one of yesterday?s postings on the CBC website, Martin Morrow highlights the themes dealt with in several documentaries in this year?s festival.  He mentions: ?Politics and music are the overriding passions of the world?s non-fiction filmmakers today ? at least judging by the documentaries in this year?s Toronto International Film Festival.?  One of the musical legends? story is that of Maria Callas (shown here).

 

He took time to discuss these themes and the selection process with Reel to Reel programmer Thom Powers.   For more on Mr. Morrow?s interview, click here.

 

Let us know what documentaries you are planning to attend. We want to hear your views and comments about films showcased in this program.

Thursday's screening of Rebellion: The Litvinenko Case was moving and riveting.  The well attended screening at the Varsity had the audience?s full attention throughout the entire film.  At times generating visceral reactions, this film showcased Litvinenko?s reasons for uncovering the corruption in the Russian government and its secret agencies (FSB and KGB).

Through personal interviews, director Andrei Nekrosov (shown right with Thom Powers) was able to paint a picture of the political and economical situation that corrupts Russia today.  He conversed with philosphers, journalists, former and current special agents, Litvinenko's wife Marina and of course, with Litvineko himself.  The main theme throughout the film is that of betrayal. Litvinenko points out that the government's corruption is a form of letting down the nation.  Those who side with the government stand firm with the idea that it was Litvinenko who betrayed his nation.  The film does not offer a happy solution to the situation but it was educational, emotional and very thought provoking.

In the Q&A session after the film, Nekrasov pointed out that his interviews with Alexander Litvinenko were meant for another film. Of course, when it became public that Litvinenko was poisoned in 2006, the film took on a different direction.  When asked about his thoughts on Litvinenko's murder, Nekrasov stated: "Sasha's (Alexander's) murder is more than political... It comes from hatred for an enemy... Personal hatred." The director had become a personal friend of Litvinenko's; thus, it was evident in the film and in the Q&A session that he has very personal reasons for making this documentary.

The conversation continued outside the main lobby of the Varsity theatre.  This film will certainly leave you pensive; wishing to discuss it further.

The first screening of Man of Cinema: Pierre Rissient by Todd McCarthy (shown here) showed this evening.  Many people are still not aware of this man's influence in the world of cinema

Rissient has introduced Hou Hsiao-hsien, Quentin Tarantino and Chen Kaige among many others to the world.  The film, like other documentaries in this program, takes a personal look at this man's life, his work, his friendships and relationships with some of the biggest names in the industry.  We get a glimpse of Rissient's many connections and towards the end of the film, he even takes us back to his childhood home.  It is obvious he trusts McCarthy, who is a close friend of his. 

During the Q&A session, McCarthy expressed that "Pierre is a fantastic cinephile."  The director also mentioned that Rissient appreciated the film a lot.  A member of the audience commented that he had never heard of Rissient before and thanked McCarthy for making this film. 

You have a chance to see this documentary on Monday, Sept 10th and Thursday, Sept 13th.

The documentary My Kid Could Paint That just screened this afternoon at the Scotiabank theatre.  Director Amir Bar-Lev (pictured right) introduces us to Marla Olmstead; a four year old girl whose paintings cause a stir in the media. 

It started with a story written by a local journalist in the local newspaper.  Soon after, the New York Times gets a lead on this story and posts its own.  Almost overnight, Marla is sensationalized as a child prodigy by some, although her mother (Laura) dislikes the phrase child prodigy. 

Mark Olmstead (Marla's father) is thrilled by the media attention; as is, Gallery owner and artist, Anthony Brunelli, who basically represents Marla and aids in selling her art pieces.  As the film progresses, the story takes a turn.  The media frenzy seems to create more chaos in the life of this young family. The news program 60 Minutes airs a story that depicts Marla's works as not her own.  The show even suggests that maybe her father is the one who created the initial paintings.  Here is where the director comes to a difficult moment in the film, since he also becomes dubious of Marla's artistic ability.  Subsequently, this becomes a film about the family as a whole; including the parents' involvement in Marla's career as an artist.  Through the film, the director also tries to include their son Zane, who is also a very smart child and perhaps all too aware of the situation around him; even though he is only two years old at the time the film was made.

The film does not offer a straight answer.  I think the director wants the audience to make its own decision about the family and whether or not Marla's paintings are in fact the real deal.

During the Q&A session Amir Bar-Lev mentioned that at first, his intention for making this documentary was to "draw attention to the process of painting." He stated that Marla's parents have seen the end-product and are not so happy with the outcome. As Bar-Lev said, "we agree to disagree."  This documentary will be released on October 5th, 2007.

Last night was the opening screening for Scott Hicks's documentary Glass: A portrait of Philip in twelve parts.  The director took time to introduce the film, which is a very intimate look at the life of prolific composer Philip Glass. The composer turns 70 this year; thus, this is quite the honour to bestow on such occasion.

The feel throughout the film is that of a private conversation.  Hicks takes us through Glass' typical day at work, his vacation home in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia; he even takes us on tour with him and his musical ensemble. We come to know Glass through his friends, his wife (Holly Glass), his siblings and of course, through his music.  The film is filled with Glass's compostions; thus making it melodic and even more personal.  It is indeed a film that inspires.  In the film, we see Glass discuss his love of music. He states, "music is about listening."  We also get a sense of his obsession with his work through his wife's comments.  She mentions that music is how Glass communicates his most private feelings.  Holly herself shares her feelings with the director and through him, with the audience.  We get the sense that there is a kind of sadness in her because Glass is very unavailabe due to his work.  Nonetheless, theres is a deep love shared between the two. 

Hicks also introduces us to several of Philip's friends and collaborators.  Glass is a man who likes to work on his music alone but loves to share in the creative process.  He embraces different forms of music from different cultures.  In his own life, Glass also has embraced tibetan, toltec and other faiths.  This is how he achieves balance in his life.  Perhaps this is why he creates such amazing music.

After the screening, Hicks answered some of the audience's questions.  He described how through the film, we see that "Philip turns out to be a man of many surprises." Hicks also said that Glass would lay out clues for him, so that he could investigate parts of his life more thoroughly. When asked about his music selections, Hicks said that the music was to resonate with the scene at hand. 

Reel to Reel programmer Thom Powers reminded us that Hicks shot most of the film himself.  To address this Hicks explained that "Philip was starting a dialogue with me, or the camera.  [Thus] that was the film I was making."  It is evident that Glass and Hicks are very good friends.  There is no other way to describe how this film came to be.  It was a great way to end the day.

 

Today's screening of Joy Division certainly leaves you feeling various emotions.  The film, directed by Grant Gee (pictured here), describes the forming of the band, its history and that of its band members, especially lead singer Ian Curtis.

Curtis is central to this film.  His lyrics were fueled by the economic state of where he lived and had grown up, Manchester, England.  Curtis's words also make mention of his anguish and emotional pain.  Throughout the film, Gee juxtaposes interviews -- with the band members, former producers, friends and in the case of Curtis, his lover Annik Honore-- with the band's music and also digitalized images of archived concert footage. The images and words certainly create the tone and mood of the film. 

As it is well known, Curtis committed suicide in May of 1980 just before the band was set to go on its North American tour.  The surviving members discuss how it was years after the fact that they realised how much Curtis was suffering.  After Curtis's death, the remaining members formed New Order; a band that became very successful in England and abroad in 1980's.

In the Q&A session after the screening, the director mentioned that his main inspiration in telling this story was his love for the music. He described how it was "something special, the music was perfect."  Through this film, you will certainly experience these feelings and more. 

Someone asked Gee why no one tried to help Curtis deal with his emotional suffering.  His answer was: "England in the 1970's was a very different place emotionally. ...In working class culture, people didn't talk about feelings."  The band certainly came from this part of society, which explains their music and Curtis's lyrics. It was unfortunate that such talent was lost but Curtis certainly left us many words to remember him by.

Schroeder's film Terror's Advocate had its North American premiere today. The director was unable attend the festival but here is an insightful interview by David D'Arcy. 

In the interview, D'Arcy decribes that: "Schroeder knows monsters when he sees them. He has made films about Idi Amin and Klaus von Bulow, and the director admits that Verges's clients are even more monstrous. His film is an interview with Verges, who can talk his way into and around any subject, in a French that seems to have been refined in the best schools. Verges is a product of the best education that France could provide, and he has used it against France ever since."

If you are interested in finding more about the filmmaker and his reasons for making this documentary, I certainly recomment this interview. Be reminded as well that we'd love to hear what you think of this film and any other documentaries you're seeing at the festival.