“The Great Canadian Comedy Sellout”
by Aaron Feser
A sense of humour is probably one of the most attractive qualities a person can have. It’s more timeless than looks and more entertaining than brains. A good sense of humour is probably the number one ingredient in popularity. So if humour is so popular why aren’t there more funny movies made in Canada?
To find out the answer to this question and procrastinate from writing the comedy script I’m working on, I attended “The Great Canadian Comedy Sellout” at the Plaza Theatre on October 1st. It was a film talk that took place during CIFF 2011 and consisted of a panel of industry experts who were assembled to help advise indie filmmakers on how to produce and sell a comedy movie. The guest speakers were Michael Petersen (Lloyd The Conqueror), Aaron Houston (Sunflower Hour), Michael Sparaga (Servitude), Dave Lawrence ( A Legend Of Whitey, Fubar, Fubar II), and independent sales and distribution consultant Angie Burns, formerly of Maple Pictures (now bought out by Alliance Films).
Michael Sparaga in particular was very excited about the comedy genre in the Canadian film industry but did admit that most Canadian filmmakers still prefer dramas over comedies. The reasons for this range from the traditionally inhibited nature of Canadians to the fact that dramas are far easier to sell because humour is “culturally specific.” According to the theory what’s funny in Calgary isn’t always funny on the other side of the world. Sometimes even what’s funny in Calgary isn’t necessarily funny in Edmonton. Especially when it comes to hockey, football, and murder rates. However, according to Angie Burns, a severed head is a severed head. She said that horror films are the kind of thing you can market anywhere because violence translates well internationally. Horror films have such a cult following that she said it may be the only genre where you don’t need a star. But unfortunately comedies do, because humour is rarely strong enough to carry a film. “Napoleon Dynamite” being an exception to the rule.
This debate made me wonder what the definition of a comedy movie was in the first place. Let’s say you were planning on making a comedy. How funny does it have to be to classify as a comedy? It’s a good question but no one asked it during the Q&A, including me. Maybe I was the only one who didn’t know.
At this juncture a good writer would take the time to consult an authority on the subject of comedy but since I’m not, I just asked my good buddy Wikipedia. The lazy writers best friend. Especially when entertainment value is more important than the truth. According to Wikipedia, for about the last 2500 years there have technically been only two kinds of stories you could tell. Comedies or tragedies. All other stories were branches of these two categories. Tragedies had sad endings and comedies had happy endings and that was that. Whether the story was funny or not, didn’t really matter. Shakespeare’s “Midsummer Night’s Dream” is classed as a comedy but it certainly isn’t funny. Usually if they make you read it in High School you can rest assured that it’s not funny. Because that would make learning fun. It’s the same reason why they don’t let comedies compete with dramas at the Oscars. Having fun is generally considered wasteful, if not immoral, and thus it can’t be rewarded.
The definition of a comedy has changed over the years and modern comedies are far different than the original Greek, Roman, or Elizabethan comedies. Nowadays most people define a comedy by asking themselves if the story is funny, or not. If it’s funny it’s a comedy and if it’s not, it’s not. The ending is irrelevant. In Stanely Kubrick’s “Dr. Strangelove” the entire world was blown up but it was still kinda funny.
Most people don’t care about what kind of humour it is as long as it gets a laugh. A laugh is a laugh and sometimes the entire story is sacrificed just to get another one. Like with most Hollywood sequels. Good comedy requires a good story to create it and filmmakers ignore this relationship at their own peril. Good comedy is a dance of exquisite timing and delicate touch that is so difficult it makes drama look like a drunken walrus shuffling along the beach in search of another beer. How many laughs you technically need to make a comedy is unclear but the standard rule for television sitcoms is three-five laughs per minute. However this rule doesn’t necessarily apply to feature films. The water is further muddied by sub-genre’s like romantic comedies and action comedies which may require a smaller percentage of humour to be classified as funny. As a rule an indie filmmaker will just make a movie they love and leave the navel gazing to someone else. Besides no one cares what the filmmaker thinks anyways. In the end it’s the gate keepers who will label the film. If a filmmaker is trying to get funding, or get a star, or get a distributor, these people will read the script or watch the movie and then decide what it is or isn’t. Even if the filmmaker is able to bypass all these people the audience will always have the final word and the problem is that their opinion changes with the generations. All of Ed Wood’s films were conceived as dramas but are now considered comedies.
Shakespeare had it easy because in his day a comedy only needed a happy ending. The fact that he didn’t need to be funny was a good thing for him because if he’d made plays with actual jokes in them no one would probably get them today and then Shakespeare would just be a nobody like the rest of us. Unless he just told fart jokes because those never seem to get old. The message from history is that the less humour in your movie the more likely it is that people will get it. Both now and later. So the question is, do we avoid making comedies because they are more ephemeral in nature, if not disposable, will make less money, reach a smaller audience, and probably won’t stand the test of time. Or do we make them anyways because a sense of humour is important for a society to develop or it runs the risk of taking itself to seriously. Then we land up with things like Wall Street, the English Monarchy, the Military Industrial Complex, the Oil & Gas Industry, and pretty much every religion on Earth. If you want you could probably add quite a few filmmakers to that list too. Making fun of that which you cannot control has always been the best way to deal with the frustration of being alive. The part where you die is especially frustrating. Without the relief valve of comedy I think most of us would lose our minds. Every actor you talk to will agree that being funny is way harder than being sad. Just as it’s easier for everyone to be depressed instead of happy. You’d think comedies would get more respect because of this fact but instead this adoration is reserved for movies that make us cry. That’s fucked up. Maybe it’s not surprising that our world is too.
Michael Sparaga made a really funny observation about Canadian movies but I forgot what it was because I forgot to ask questions, or take notes. The good news is that Michael makes comedies for a living so I’m sure he’ll find it highly amusing if I butcher his quote and slander his name at the same time. Basically he said something to the effect that most Canadian films are usually about being touched by your Uncle when you were a child and it’s usually winter and really cold and everyone’s depressed and then someone kills themselves and it doesn’t make sense because it’s not supposed to and only two people ever see the movie and they’re both related to you. It was hilarious. And so true.
Michael S. didn’t elaborate on why Canadian filmmakers don’t have a sense of humour but he claims the tide is changing. The industry is starting to loosen up a bit. Even Telefilm, notorious for funding only dramas, is supposedly sinking more money into comedies and has this thing called the Telefilm Canada Features Comedy Lab which helped to create Michael’s film “Servitude.” Which also showed at CIFF this year.
Michael Petersen went in a different direction and funded his movie from entirely private sources. He raised about 1.2 million from about a dozen investors to make “Lloyd The Conqueror” which was his first feature and it premiered at CIFF this year. Of note was the fact that Michael raised the money based solely on the script alone. Not on the talent attached to it. Which is unusual as investors place a lot of value on the actors. Usually a movie is the actors. And writers are a dime a dozen. Even if Shakespeare wrote a movie script tomorrow the first thing the investors would ask is…who’s in it. Michael P.’s explanation of the casting process was interesting in that he had originally wanted to cast people who had better name value as this would make the movie more commercially viable. But after some soul searching he realized he didn’t think these people were very funny and he didn’t want to make a movie he didn’t believe in. So instead he cast actors he felt passionate about. Actors like Harlon Williams and Mike Smith. Fortunately his production team backed him up on the decision, so it was all good.
Dave Lawrence also had a challenge casting “Fubar II” and he told us this story about how hard it was to cast this one girl who played someone’s girlfriend in the movie because Dave’s production team wanted a name actor and Dave liked this other girl because he thought she was right for the part but she was unknown and had very little experience. I forgot all the names because I was too busy listening to the story but it was a great story and in the end Dave’s instincts were right and he got the actor he wanted and it was all good.
Aaron Houston went hard core and funded “Sunflower Hour” with his own money, about 29 grand. Even though he scored some finishing funds from Telefilm later on the genius to making a movie this way is that you can film the movie your way and get a rough cut or finished movie done that will show funders what kind of movie you’re trying to make. And this will help trigger more money for editing or distribution or whatnot. Although this approach gives a filmmaker the absolute freedom to make the movie they want, it also has to be a small movie. Because freedom has a price, as they say. Luckily digital cameras, laptop computers, and the internet are making the cost of movies a lot cheaper these days. So freedom is getting cheaper by the minute. It also helps if believe that you can actually make good movies without expensive stars and big budget special effects. Which the panel seems to believe you can because that’s how they made their movies.
What the panel was not entirely clear on was how to actually make money with your film, other than the obvious method of selling DVD’s out of the back of a van. Marketing has traditionally been a rather grey area where most filmmakers tend to get hosed by distributors, broadcasters, lawyers, etc. Dave Lawrence said he didn’t make much on “Fubar” but the distributor did amazingly well. The consensus was that the process of making a profit is still harder than making a movie, but it’s getting simpler. The internet is clearly the way forward and when it finally does take over completely there will be far less middle men, if any at all. The panel also stressed that your movie trailer is very important. It should be cut by a pro, if possible. How many ‘hits’ it gets on YouTube or how many ‘likes’ it gets on Facebook will play an important part in gathering a fan base and convincing distributors that your movie is worth buying. Through social media you can actually prove that a movie has an audience and even narrow that popularity down to certain cities or parts of the world where marketing can be focused.
The funny thing was that we were sitting in a movie theatre and the panel was telling us that of the many distribution routes, theatrical distribution was the most difficult avenue to pursue. “Fubar” was quite popular and had a large fan base so Dave Lawrence felt that it would be a slam dunk to distribute “Fubar II” in theaters. But nothing could be further from the truth. The competition for theaters is extreme and if your movie doesn’t post good numbers immediately, they’ll pull it. Even with the cost saving benefit of digital projection your film still has to compete with Hollywood blockbusters so it has to be an instant hit or your dead. There is no such thing as slowly building a theatrical audience like they did in the 70′s. There’s just too few theatres, too many films being made in the world, over 40,000 a year claims the panel, and too many other ways to see a film. The demise of movie theaters is the result of many factors but the worst of them all is social media. Whether it be via TV, telephone, or the internet it has created a world where people expect and demand convenience. Especially when it comes to information. Which is what movies have now become because they travel in an information pipeline. They are information first and entertainment second. People might wait in line to get into a popular night club and they might even spend all day traveling to a mountain just so they can ski down it. But when it comes to information…they want it yesterday. Information must be available on demand or people won’t consume it. But if information is convenient enough people will consume anything. And theaters are not convenient. Yeah, the screen is thirty feet tall but people would rather have the convenience of watching it on their three inch iPhone screen whenever they want.
One could argue that at one time movies were more than just information and the theatre was a unique experience that was not available elsewhere. But the convenience of social media has reduced the value of movie theaters to the point where bedbugs find them more attractive than people do. Social media has done a lot of good but it has also become a virtual black hole that is sucking in all of reality and transforming it into data. Social media has become a filter through which our entire life flows. If it’s not on the net it doesn’t exist. And we like it that way. Because it’s convenient. Instant gratification is like crack cocaine to the human brain and social media is our number one dealer. The beauty of the internet for filmmakers is that it’s also convenient for them too. It allows a filmmaker to take their time and create/fund/publicize a movie at a convenient pace. And then sell viewings of the movie to an audience at that same convenient pace. Over an indefinite period of time. If your budget is low enough you don’t even need to make a hit movie to make money. You just need to make enough money to pay expenses and fund the next movie. For most people filmmaking is about lifestyle, not getting rich. Kind of like farming and every other branch of the arts.
The film talk was a good idea and I’d like to see more of them in Calgary because there’s a shit load of things you gotta know in order to produce movies. It’s overwhelming to say the least and it’s why no one wants to be a producer. It’s the hardest job in the business and probably the most important one because producers create all the other jobs in the industry. If we want to develop a home grown feature film industry in Calgary we have to figure out how to encourage more people to become producers. Which is not any easy task because it’s kind of like asking someone to stand alone in a dark room and set themselves on fire by hitting two rocks together so they have enough light to poke themselves in the eye with a stick. The panel didn’t explain all the things you need to know make a movie but they did point out the most important thing of all. Don’t get into show business for the money. They didn’t say it out loud but from the way they talked and the stories they told it was abundantly clear that passion is what inspired them to start making movies and it’s what kept them going when the chips were down, the money was gone, and all that was left was a dream.
Everything is a head game in the end and passion has to bookend your life together or you’ll never get out of bed in the morning, let alone make a movie. Passion is what they’ll talk about at your funeral, not the money. And the nice thing about passion is that it’s the only thing in the budget that’s free.
CIFF Review: The Skin I Live In (2011)
by Ainsley Barteluk
The Skin I Live In screened on Sept 29 at the Calgary International Film Festival.
Before the film commenced, one of the festival volunteers warned that lot of people walked out of the theatre during the screening of The Skin I Live In at Toronto’s
The Skin I Live In still
International Film Festival. This is why I hesitate before writing what I thought of Pablo Almodóvar’s latest film. Usually when I come across a cinematic masterpiece such as this, the first thing I’ll tell someone is: “it was so good!” In this case these words feel completely inappropriate. Of Almodóvar’s films, this one is definitely the boldest, and I for one am happy that he was so bold. Packed with twisted demented elements that were nauseating and utterly terrifying, it’s also somehow his most enthralling film. In all honesty, I was shocked at what I saw, though it never even occurred to me to leave the theatre. I was so absorbed that I couldn’t look away—I became obsessed with knowing how it would end.
The film is based on the novel Tarantula (Serpent’s Tail) by Thierry Jonquet, who is famous for writing crime novels. Set in modern day Spain, we meet Robert Ledgard (Antonio Bandaras), a highly successful surgeon who secretly uses human beings as guinea pigs in his goal to invent a mutation of human skin that will be fireproof and essentially resistant to any kind of damage. His wife was killed in a fire and thus serves as his motivation, though as the story unfolds it’s clear Ledgard has been through a lot in his life that would drive him to act like a mad scientist.
As I mentioned earlier, I found this film to be a masterpiece and I’ll stand by that for various reasons. Visually, the film is put together so well that even if you disliked the film you couldn’t argue that it wasn’t well done. The quality of the visuals and cinematography definitely elevates Almodóvar to the level of Tim Burton and Baz Luhrman. One of the “guinea pigs” makes these dolls out of her clothes in her cell to pass the time and the dolls definitely had a Tim Burton feel to them. So did the overall dark feeling of the film. As for Bandaras, his performance was easy and brilliant. I’d really like to see him act more. Honestly I think he could have been a Latino Johnny Depp if only he’d give more performances like this one. It’s up to the audience to decide whether his character is evil or just crazy. Personally I think it’s just unfortunate events in his life that have driven him crazy and that’s why he acts the way he does. Another thing I loved about the film is the music; it’s perfectly matched to the fast pace and edginess of the film. My favorite was an incredibly compelling remake of the Elliot Smith song “Between the Bars”. I could go on forever about what I loved about the film, though given its crude nature I can see why people walked out of the theatre.
I need to make one thing clear: I’m not trying to sensationalize the film by re-emphasizing that people walked out of the theatre. Genre-wise, this film makes even some of the creepiest psychological thrillers–like Being John Malkovich (1999)–look ordinary. There are good and bad things that come with the horrifying events portrayed on the screen. As with many of Almodóvar’s films, the story is a puzzle. For me, I found it to be so mesmerizing that I was willing to endure some of the more violent and disturbing scenes because it is just so satisfying to watch the pieces of the story come together. Indeed, this movie is so absorbing I began to feel trapped in it. At one point it began to feel like sex could never be anything but violent, dirty, wrong and exploitative. It was enough to make my skin crawl, and I promise there wasn’t a single person in that theatre that did not have a strong reaction to this film. One thing is for sure, I’ve never seen anything like this. I guarantee you haven’t either.
CIFF Reviews: A Legend of Whitey
by Ainsley Barteluk
A Legend of Whitey screened at the Calgary International Film Festival on Sept 26 and will encore on Saturday October 1 (4:15pm @ the Plaza Theatre)
The imperative in historical films is usually to portray the characters as dignified and always serious. This is not the case in David Lawrence and Paul J. Spence’s campy, western-style comedy: A Legend of Whitey. Best known as the creators of Fubar (2002), it’s not surprising that these filmmakers provide us with a different take on what Albertans were like in the 19th Century. From the outset, the film is preoccupied with inappropriate humor (is there any other kind?). It makes us laugh while displaying Alberta’s beautiful countryside, and at the same time issuing a facetious commentary on the province’s bigoted origins.
Ainsley and the guys from Fubar.
The setting is a remote ranch in 1885 where two half-brothers (David Lawrence and Paul J. Spence) reunite. Trouble begins as the half-native brother Luther (Spence) shows up at the outpost dressed as an “Injun”; it’s not long before they have to skip town with the local authority hot on their tails. While on the run, the brothers come across a white buffalo that Luther explains is a spirit animal named Whitey. Legend has it that Whitey is actually a beautiful woman who has been transformed into a buffalo and will only turn back once she has found her true love. Luther must convince his brother of the authenticity of the legend so he can help him on his quest to return her to her people and also find true love.
As the director explained in the Q&A following the film’s premiere at the Plaza theatre in Kensington, the original idea was to make a buddy film where the two guys would be the run together. What eventually took shape was an improvised western, and that turned into a western comedy with a wide range of interesting characters. It was a collaboration of friends, resources, and support that helped Lawrence pull off this film. Indeed, most of the cast was at the premiere along with many other loyal fans—including Mayor Naheed Nenshi—to show support for Calgary’s most famous filmmakers. Perseverance was also necessary for it to have been pulled off, as the cast and crew endured some of Alberta’s harsh weather during production and almost had their entire set destroyed in a Tornado.
It’s clear they had a good time making this film, and everyone in the theatre sounded like they enjoyed themselves with its hilarious pokes at not only Red-Neck Albertans, but also at the mentality of that era concerning things such as female modesty and “civilized behaviour”. Another interesting device was the use of the Dutch characters to create a documentary-like feel to the film as throughout the film the Dutch interview the other characters, and take pictures in their quest to document Alberta for their king in Holland. In addition to that, the cinematography was simply beautiful. However, one might find the film is lacking something, especially when it comes to the acting. In particular, the characters’ accents are a problem. Perhaps the mismatched hick accents worked better in the modern setting of Fubar than they do in a historical piece. For that reason the film may not resonate with authenticity. In all honesty, it’s a film made for cult-classic cinema followers and those who do not “get” these types of films will perhaps leave the theatre feeling less than stoked. But for fans of these types of films this is definitely a must see.
CIFF Reviews: Cloudburst
by Janine St. Jean
Cloudburst screened with the Calgary International Film Festival on Sept 24 and will encore on Fri Sept 30 (9:30pm @ the Globe)
cloud·burst
noun /ˈkloudˌbərst/
cloudbursts, plural
1. A sudden, violent rainstorm
2. A cloudburst is an extreme form of precipitation, sometimes with hail and thunder, which normally lasts no longer than a few minutes but is capable of creating flood conditions.
I feel that there are two types of films: one for entertainment, and one for art. It seems that the two types are constantly at odds with each other, that compromising one is the only way to subsist the other. Yet somehow, Cloudburst is both entertaining and art. On the surface, with it’s scenic imagery of beautiful sunsets and natural wonders, I was enchanted by the lush surroundings the cinematographer had painstakingly composed for the viewer. Then I met the characters Stella and Dot. Brash, crude, vulgar, outspoken, independent, opinionated Stella got under my skin. While Dot was gullible, meek, trusting, naive, and so very dependant due to her blindness. I didn’t think I could get though this film. Throw into the mix a lesbian love story and I suddenly thought this was going to be entertaining! Be it old lesbians (back to the art film. This is nothing like the hot lesbians in the “L” word.) that constantly bicker (the needle is now pointing at entertainment) as they struggle with life’s tribulations.
With most films, the plot is the fundamental crux that drives a piece forward. I don’t want to talk about the plot in this film. See it for yourself. The characters are what got my attention. They were so amazingly developed. The balance that Stella and Dot provide for each other is the film! (My needle is pointing to art, again.) Each character on their own was painful to watch. But together, they were hilarious! It’s like a “you had to be there” moment, which was filled with humour, wit and agony! (Entertainment!)
Shot entirely in Nova Scotia, this film was an enduring and memorable experience with a brilliant name! I was suddenly overwhelmed, and in an instant it was over.
A testament to what defines love and the obstacles that a couple will go through (just to be married like “normal”people); this was a genuine glimpse of the perseverance in the name of love.
Guilt (La Vérité) review
By Jackie Nicolls
Guilt screened Friday Sept 23 and has a encore screening on Tuesday Sept 27 (7pm @ Eau Claire)
Marc Bisaillon’s Guilt (La Vérité) is a sensitively gritty portrait of how two teenagers attempt to deal with the guilt of accidentally killing a man after an unruly night of partying. With a story that could just as easily have been told as a preachy “cautionary tale”, Bisaillon does an admirable job of giving the boys and their situation an unsettlingly relatable authenticity.
Guilt is the second in an announced tetralogy of films by Bisaillon; each examining the effects of silence on the various individuals who are affected when a crime is committed. Guilt concerns itself with the emotional toll that committing murder and keeping that burden a secret takes on a young conscience. Gabriel (Pierre-Luc Lafontaine) and Yves (Émile Mailhiot) are best friends, and are established as somewhat troublesome (in their opening scene together, they deliberately crash Yves’ car). After one night of drinking and music, they find themselves breaking into and destroying a residential home. On their way out, they are interrupted by a man who could turn them in. It is this encounter that quickly turns to tragedy. Throughout the rest of film, it is Gabriel (played with brilliant honesty and vulnerability by Lafontaine) who is suffering the most from the subsequent guilt; taking his turmoil out on his mother and his girlfriend. Yves holds his steadfast belief that they should forget about it and move on. As the story progresses, the friends drift apart and Gabriel’s grief leads him to irrational actions.
The delicate nature of the subject matter is dealt with very effectively and is told humanly, taking into account the mental states of characters on all sides of the incident. It is this humanity that gives the entire film a feeling of harsh reality that any audience member can take away with them – that this could happen to anyone – and that is what makes the story so believable. A key factor in the story’s believability is the strong performances by the cast. Pierre-Luc Lafontaine succeeds in playing Gabriel with innocence (but not naivety) and intelligence (but not ambition) that makes an audience immediately sympathize with him. Émile Mailhiot as Yves is a strong and confident counterpart to the more fragile Gabriel.
The only critique that can be made of this film is a few aspects of the cinematography. In many scenes, including one of the most pivotal scenes of the film, the action was unfortunately underexposed. It would be understandable to accept that this was an artistic choice and could just be the effects of these scenes taking place at night, but it was occasionally frustrating. As an audience member, it is very important that we can see the characters faces, especially with such talented actors. Without that direct line to the emotions of the protagonists, it is difficult to connect and relate to their experiences.
Overall, Guilt gives us a human and heartbreaking look into how people cope with a guilty conscience, how people deal with tragedy, and how people attempt to help the ones they care about. Not only does this film deserve to be seen, you deserve to see this film.
Lloyd the Conqueror Review
by Janine St. Jean
Lloyd the Conqueror screens on Saturday Sept 24 (7:15pm @ the Globe) and Saturday Oct 1 (2pm @ the Plaza) as part of the Calgary International Film Festival.
I can’t even say it. L-A-R…. It’s like the word “shampoo”. It’s hard for me to say. LARP. There. I can see it in print, typed by my own hands. I’ve even said it in my head! LARPing? I must draw the line. You can’t make it into a verb by adding “ing”. It’s an acronym that already ends in “ing”! I digress….
The plot low down: Lloyd and his pals would rather spend their nights entertaining themselves instead of focusing on their academics. As a result, they are sure to fail their community college classes, which would cause them to lose their student finances. Burdened by the reality of their situation, they make a backroom deal with Derek, the shady professor who will fail them. Derek also happens to wield the title of Unholy in the live action role playing world, to which they agree to enter. They sign up in tournament as the Forces of Light, the opponents of Derek’s Dark Dominion. The professor wants the competition to crown himself the LARP champion, but Lloyd and his friends accidentally up the ante in a winner-takes-all stake in pursuit of his dream girl and an A+. Can 3 dimwit college students set both worlds right? Will Lloyd fuck the brains out of his dream girl’s cute little head while restoring the fun to the world of LARPing? Armed with foam swords and plastic shields, the trio forge ahead, winning the confidence and companionship of those along the way. With guest appearances by Harland Williams and Tron (Andy Sparacino), I confess to LOLing on many occasions. Unlikely heroes confronted with good, bad, and really bad news that could force them to lose the tournament thus forfeiting their grades, their funding and Lloyd’s girl. Anything seems possible with the roll of a dice. What’s next? Lloyd and his friends playing an online game only to cure HIV by solving a complex protein puzzle? Don’t make me roll for initiative!
The opinionated technical low down: If you haven’t heard of the Sentry Box in Calgary, nor do you own a d20, this film will be a bit trickier for you to digest. I must admit I’ve played D&D before, but a movie about live action role playing? I shuddered. Reluctant, I popped the disk into my player. WTF! The production was glossy and slick, beautifully shot on the Red One camera. The sound was great. The music awesome. The characters believable. The setting proudly familiar! And I sat back and took it all in. As I watched the characters, Lloyd and his lazy friends, bungle their way through a deal-with-the-Devil plot, I kept asking myself: this was made in Calgary? With a talented cast and crew, great characters and a neatly written script, I was easily seduced into this quirky fantasy world. This film sets the bar high and pushes the limits of what the Calgary Independent Film industry can do. For those that get this film, it’s a point of local pride!
THE BIG BLUE (Le Grand Bleu) Director’s Cut Review By K.J. Kleefeld
On DVD: running time 168 mins; Released 1988; Directed by Luc Besson; Starring Jean-Marc Barr, Jean Reno, Rosanna Arquette; Cinematography by Carlo Varini, Music by Eric Serra; Released by Samuel Goldwyn Films.
Luc Besson filmography reads, for the most part, like a man possessed on bringing obscure characters to life in beautiful worlds while death and destruction run rampant. ‘The Fifth Element’, ‘The Professional’ and ‘La Femme Nikita’ (no, not the television show, the original French movie) all play with violence while dealing with a character who is trying to escape the dangerous world that they have been thrust into. In one of his earlier films, he used Jacques Mayol, a legendary free-diver as an inspiration for the main character while exploring his early love of the sea and dolphins in a much gentler movie, “The Big Blue”.
Diving deep into the world of free-diving, Luc Besson explores competition, love and the attractive mystery of the ocean. Free-diving is a sport where divers challenge the ocean and themselves to see who can stay down the longest and go the deepest without any use of breathing apparatus’s. Jacques (Jean-Marc Barr) or the Frenchman, as his childhood rival Enzo (Jean Reno) calls him, is put to the test when his love of the ocean and dolphins is challenged by a quirky New Yorker. Johanna (Rosanna Arquette) follows him around Europe on his quest to compete in the sport of free-diving.
After losing his father to the dangers of the sea, Jacques grows up never wanting to leave the water. Perhaps it keeps him close to his only known parent. As an adult, he goes into a trance-like state when he enters the claustrophobic frozen lake to have his heart rate measured by Dr. Lawrence. Jacques possesses a rare ability to slow his heart rate down to almost nothing. Johanna, an insurance investigator for an accident involving one of the research trucks, arrives just in time to see Jacques go into the frigid water. She is immediately drawn to him.
Once she returns to the loud buzz of New York, she decides to pull a scam on the company she works for by creating a bogus claim that would create a bogus trip. She then heads off to Italy to find Jacques. There she meets Enzo, a straight shooting, oversized bully who’s the champion of the free-diving world, and afraid of his own mother. The three of them travel around exotic locations while Jacques and Enzo continue their childhood competitions.
Once Jacques falls in love with Johanna, she brings him into the human world and his marine world begins to turn upside down (literally) as the ocean tries to get pull him back. All the while Jacques continually stays on the heels of his best, and only, friend to push the limits that one man can take from the ocean.
Cinematographer Carlo Varini’s visuals and music by Eric Serra blend beautifully as Luc Besson’s story telling works an interesting journey that today’s movies often lack. Besson’s later films deal with many fast paced sequences that match most of the blockbusters that screen at the local Cineplex, but he continues to stays close to his love of discovering characters. The pacing of this movie is considerably slower than many moviegoers today may want to tolerate, but something about this movie for me presents a journey that I wanted to go on. Maybe it’s my love of the ocean, or my fascination with dolphins, but for the last twenty years I always smile when I see it playing. If you’re looking for something a little different, as well as an amazing comedic performance by Jean Reno, I’d suggest you check it out.
Interview with Erin Sneath
Interview with local $100 Filmmaker (and new CSIF Board member!) Erin Sneath by Aaron Feser
“Qimmit” – Review by Cheryl Blood-Bouvier
“Qimmit” (2010) screened on June 2 as part of CSIF’s co-presentation series with the Indigeneity Artist Collective and Dreamspeakers Film Festival.
“Qimmit: A Clash of Two Truths” is an NFB Production by Ole Gjerstad & Joelie Sanguya. It is a film about the Inuit from 1950-1970 as they experience more lifestyle changes when the RCMP began to deliberately kill their sled dogs, which affected their Semi-Nomadic lifestyle. Inuits believed this was deliberately done by the RCMP as a government policy to force them off the land. A recent Commission was held to seek the truth of this matter and it was a Clash of Two Truths.
The story is beautifully filmed in Docudrama style, showing the land, sunrise, dogs, snow, Inuit from different communities who remembered the history, and also RCMP officers who worked in Inuit communities during the years the dog killings occurred. There was a definite clash in the information told orally by the Inuit and the RCMP. Reminded me of a saying I once heard: “There is your truth, then there is my truth, and then there is the truth.”
The Inuit were interviewed in their own language and with it relayed their personal experience of loosing dogs shot by the RCMP. Some had lost their whole group of sled dogs and could no longer go to hunt for food. There were many Inuit witnesses, stories relayed orally, and upsetting memories alive in the community from these negative experiences. No one would speak of it to the younger Inuit. The older Inuit would not pass these stories onto the younger Inuit because they did not want to carry these bad memories based on their experiences. One young girl interviewing her grandfather had never heard of this before from him. She asked him why she was hearing of this now, he explained that it created many bad feelings and they did not want the young people to carry these bad feelings into the future. Their lifestyle had changed a lot too nowadays.
In the retelling of their stories of losing their dogs to the RCMP bullets many of the Inuit people became emotional for the first time. They explained in a variety of stories the importance of the relationships they had with their dogs. They were close to their dogs because they depended on them for their survival in the barren, harsh land and cold winter conditions. I learnt much about husky dogs and how important they were to the Inuit people survival. They trained and knew their dogs very well.
The perspective of the RCMP was matter of fact, and aggressive, in communicating on behalf of the brotherhood of the servicemen that they would never do that. One RCMP officer stated he did not want to go to his grave with this story hanging over them.
Some of this film was documented in the warm, soft desert air of Penticton BC where the Retired RCMP gathered for their weekly coffee and crumpets. They state from their experiences, the politicians and law in the north were an honorable bunch. As a matter of fact, when Walter Densdale was minister of Indian Affairs (1960-63), he sent “Demster” to buy 50 dogs from Eastern Inuit to replace some of the dogs that died and then these dogs died too. About 700 to 900 dogs died of illness at that time. This pushed people into towns because of fear of starvation, and the nomadic hunter ended with dog epidemic.
There was definitely a lack of communication between RCMP and Inuits. I was relieved the commission came to the resolve it in the end. The issues arising from a devastating cultural change for the Inuit were apparent. I liked the resolve, and was impressed with the apology and healing took place. The Truth Commission stated, “in order to move forward must open up the past to move forward.” An Inuit stated, “Inuit were going now they are coming back, using dogs even though they don’t need them to survive anymore.” As on Inuit man stated, “They tried to make me white, they failed cause I’m too short and have different skin and hair.” A little humor goes along way sometimes.
The movie was informative, well filmed, and old film footage was used as well. It was great to listen to the Inuit speak their own language as well. The youth were also involved in many aspects of this film as well.
For more information on “Qimmit” – http://www.onf-nfb.gc.ca/eng/collection/film/?id=55892
“Down the Mighty River” – Review by Cheryl Blood-Bouvier
“Down the Mighty River” (APTN) screened on June 1 as part of CSIF’s co-presentation series with the Indigeneity Artist Collective and Dreamspeakers Film Festival.
What a powerful and insightful film! The damming of Rupert River acts another stepping-stone towards the final gigantic goal of Quebec Hydro Power; Power for the people of Quebec.
The film begins with excellent photography showing Rupert River animated – free, wild, lapping, spitting, spraying, out of control waves rising, sinking, sapping, twisting, turning, thundering, swishing, singing along its traditional pathway to the ocean. You could hear a joyful familiar rush as the tinkling, almost breathing body forged along. Its lustful, glistening, lively, gorgeous body danced continuously in the light of day and moonlight night throughout the season for eons. Slithered seduction for anyone, everyone, to dare enter. The body of river gleamed brownish, white, black, numerous blue shades, yellow, green like a skin, with many colors exposing its mood or sentiment at that moment of contact. For thousands of years it lived here, living by Creators’ natural law, playing its way in all season’s; winter, spring, summer and fall. The stories it could tell from Glacial times; immemorial to date and I viewed this film like I was riding this river to its devastation.
The Cree people lived alongside and survived off the food provided and also from the healing supernatural power of the Rupert River. This mighty river sustained their being and survival by providing food, nourishment, medicine, physical, mental, emotional, spiritual strength, education and shelter. The greatest gift known by the Cree peoples and all who lived along the river’s path, Rupert River was known as “the Great Healer.” This film follows a group of individuals, mainly Cree, who decided to make their final journey by boat down the river before its silence would be completed forever by one of the largest Hydro-electric Dam Developments worldwide to date.
still - "Down the Mighty River" (APTN)
This story informs on several accounts, stories woven together exposing the displacement of the Cree people and presents many of the issues that plague the Cree people to date. This was an emotional journey for the Cree involved, who carried the burden of this enormous decision. The after effects of the decision to create the dam seemed extremely evil and morally offensive to me, and maybe the other audience members as well. Personally, I was unaware of the environmental devastation and the fact that this even took place at all. The tactic of divide and conquer was in full view and effective.
Several different perspectives were portrayed by the film though, the Quebec Engineers who were proud of their work, and all the employees who became employed and did their best work on this massive project. They were proud of the fact that nowhere else in the world has this been done before. The promised jobs came and went for the Cree – some gained new trades and others were left in the silt of a massive project completed. Each participant on the boat journey, from archeologist to Cree, had a story to tell: good, bad and ugly. The story was a gripping and well told, and the film portrayed a great message to all who viewed it. This will definitely not only effect the Cree in the area: from my viewpoint it is going to effect Canada and North America, and most likely Planet Earth as a whole. However, like myself you may only become informed once you view this film.
For more information on “Down the Mighty River” – http://www.aptn.ca/series/id,49623724
