TIFF Day 6: Xavier Dolan's Tom at the Farm (or a movie which makes me think "Xavier, why do you hate women"?)

I have been putting off writing this review for many a day, as I'm still so confused and angry about the film-sometimes having a film evoke those type of feelings means that it was an incredible piece of filmmaking, and other times it means that the movie sucked-I'm going to put this film into the second category.

Xavier Dolan is definitely an impressive young man. He is 24 and has made 4 feature films, of which Tom at the Farm is his latest. I saw his previous film, Lawrence Anyway (about a man transitioning into a woman, and the effect that has on his long term relationship), last year and found it really interesting. Not perfect, but interesting. I find with Dolan's films that there is so much potential, but not everything has been 100% flushed out. It's like his films are the draft right before the final draft--good, but not quite there yet.

Tom at the Farm, in contrast, seems like a first draft. The idea is interesting, and as always, the way the film is shot and the acting are quite good, but there are so many things wrong with the story, that you just couldn't really get behind it. Add to that the way he constructs one of his female characters, and I was ready to SCREAM in rage at the end of this movie.

The movie centres on Tom, a young gay man from Montreal whose boyfriend Guy has just died (we don't know how, and never find out). Tom is on his way to a small farming community in rural Quebec to pay his respects to Guy's family, and to attend the funeral. As soon as he arrives, you know that something is wrong. The mother, Agathe, is strange, but you could chalk that up to her just losing her son (and her husband before that), and living on an isolated farm. Then you find out that Agathe has another son, Francis, that Guy never told Tom about. The first time we meet Francis is also the first time Tom meets him-in the middle of the night in Tom's bedroom, with Francis physically attacking him and threatening him. It seems as though Agathe doesn't know that Guy was gay, and that Guy and Francis kept up a lie to her that he actually had a pretend girlfriend Sarah. Francis is clearly extremely homophobic (whether this might have something to do with his own repressed sexuality, never gets fully addressed) and tells Tom that he better keep up the lie to his mother.

At the funeral, which Tom was supposed to talk at but doesn't have the courage to, Francis ends up attacking Tom in the bathroom telling him he must make it up to his mother (for not speaking). On the way back to the farm, Tom drives off to leave Agathe and Francis forever, but eventually changes his mind and turns back. This is where the film really stops making sense. I can believe that someone would stay for the funeral (despite being threatened by a terrifying sociopath) out of a feeling of duty to their deceased partner, but once the funeral is over, there is no reason to go back to that crazy situation (not even to get your luggage).

When Tom gets back to the farm, Francis again attacks him to the point where he has to go to the doctor to get bandaged up. Again, why he didn't tell the doctor what really happened and get the fuck out of there, especially as it becomes clear that the entire community will not engage with Francis or his mother, is beyond me.

Once again, Tom tries to leave, this time however, Francis has put his car up on blocks, and so he can't. Again, why you wouldn't just leave the farm, hitchhike into town and tell the police, I'm not really sure? Tom starts working on the farm with Francis, taking care of the cows etc. There is a strange scene after they deliver a calf, where Francis forces Tom to do coke with him and then they waltz together (apparently Francis and Guy took dance lessons together-which again doesn't make much sense to me considering the level of Francis' homophobia) while Francis tells Tom about how he wants his mother to die so he doesn't have to look after her anymore etc.

Eventually Tom gets so desperate that he calls someone (presumably in Montreal) to come and see him at the farm. Sarah, his and Guy's friend that Guy and Francis based the fake girlfriend on, comes-but again, this doesn't really make that much sense-are they really close, does she feel bad for him b/c his boyfriend died? Isn't she wondering what the fuck he's been doing living on this farm for weeks?

Agathe is overjoyed to meet Sarah (although you suspect that she must know that something isn't quite right-why wouldn't her son's girlfriend have attended the funeral?). Almost immediately, in the few minutes they are alone together, Francis threatens Sarah. He looks at her and says one of the worst things I've ever heard in a film:

"I'd fuck you. I'd fuck you so that your little cunt would bleed"

He starts towards her and Sarah grabs a huge kitchen knife and says something along the lines of, if you come close to me, I'll kill you.

Sarah takes Tom outside and says/does the only things that make sense in the movie: this place is fucking crazy, we are leaving now, get your shit and let's go. They also have a bizarre conversation in which Sarah reveals that she slept with Guy, as did many other people, and that Tom is deluded about their relationship-this seems to come out of nowhere as a way to justify Tom's actions that come next.

Tom refuses to leave (again, why? I mean Stockholm syndrome can only go so far right?) Francis joins the conversation and tells Sarah she isn't leaving. When Sarah sticks up for herself, saying I'm not afraid of you, I'm leaving, Tom insinuates that he will help Francis hurt her (is this b/c he's hurt that she slept with his boyfriend? even so, I'm not sure why he too has turned into a monster).

The next scene is where any of the legitimacy the film could have had, is burnt down. We see Francis and Sarah in the front of Francis' truck, with Tom in the back seat. They are parked outside the bus station. Sarah says she is really drunk and Francis keeps giving her more booze. They are laughing and hammered. Francis tells Tom to take a walk, insinuating to leave them alone so that they could have sex. Sarah does not object, and Tom gets out of the car and goes into the truck-stop bar.

THERE IS NO WOMAN IN THE WORLD who after having a crazy psychopath pretty much threaten to rape/assault her, would then hours later get drunk with him (perhaps that part was forced) and willingly be alone in his car with him, and then have sex with him. NO WAY, NO ONE, INSANE, RIDICULOUS. They are in a parking lot where there are other people-she could have gotten out and gotten help. Also, the fact that Tom so willingly leaves her with him is pretty repulsive. Even if you are hurt by someone's actions, are you really going to leave them alone with someone who you know is a terrifying violent abusive person.

At this point is where I really checked out of the movie, because I really found this whole part repulsive, insane, unrealistic, and just down right idiotic.

We don't see Sarah again, except in the background as she gets on the bus to leave. Inside the truck-stop bar, Tom finds out why the whole town is scared of Francis--in the same bar years ago, he literally ripped a man's mouth and jaw from his face, after the man insinuated his brother was gay. Why Francis isn't (or wasn't) in jail again makes no sense. Eventually Tom escapes, Francis comes after him, chases him into a wooded area. Tom makes his way back to Francis' car on the highway and drives off in it. Later when he stops for gas, he sees the man that Francis attacked. That's how it ends. UGH.

The Q and A after the film gave me an even worse feeling about the film and about Dolan as a filmmaker. Dolan couldn't answer any of the questions people asked him about the film, and he seemed really immature, arrogant, and poorly spoken. Like, you directed the film, and acted in it (he played Tom), and you brought it to a film festival-why can't you articulate anything about it? I was tempted to put up my hand and ask him "why do you hate women?," especially after the actress who played Sarah (who was present for the Q and A) stated that Xavier wrote great women (!?!?!), but I decided against it-as I don't think it would have gone over well (and considering Dolan couldn't even answer the most basic of questions from the audience, I don't think he would have been any better at addressing mine).

The thing that upsets me most about this film is that because Dolan is revered as the young talent in Canadian filmmaking, he'll get applauded for this film even though it isn't very good, and is really offensive to anyone who thinks women are more than just vaginas. Anyway, save yourself some time and rage, and don't see this!

TIFF day 9: Unforgiven - Japanese remake (by the other A Mrk)

The Japanese remake of Unforgiven offers an excellent and fascinating look at an American classic. The movie is both completely true to the original (in both tone and plot) and finds a perfect home in Japan. One of the rare times a foreign country has chosen to remake an American movie, from the moment of its announcement it was thought the story would be perfect for 1800's Japan and indeed the story is an excellent fit for the place and time.

The story begins in a brothel, when one of the women working there makes fun of her male clients. Wanting to punish her, he and one of his friends repeatedly slash her face, horribly disfiguring her. The brothel's madam calls the sheriff, but he refuses to punish the men. Infuriated, the women of the brothel pool their savings and put a price on the head of the two men, wanting their deaths. As word of this spreads, our main character (Ken Watenabe) is recruited to join an older man eager to do the killings, and then also a younger man, also interested in the reward.

One of the off putting aspects of both movies is the deadened, realistic depiction of violence. It is not dwelled on (though the Japanese version is more explicit) but is hard to realize that this is how violence actually exists in the world: People who are shot do not die and must be shot or knifed again, and they suffer in agony from their wounds. Both films are set in the late 1800s in countries that are now highly developed. The realization that their settling of their last frontiers were places utter crudity and savage violence makes us squirm to wonder how any decent people survived there, and how thin the veneer of civilization is. Indeed, the characters themselves have been worn down by violence - and they are the "winners" who delivered the violence.

Watenabe, just like Eastwood, is able to act by presence. He probably has less dialogue than at least four other characters, despite being the main character, yet in every scene we look to him. Clint Eastwood always seems to have violence under his skin, and the contained tension helps drive his movie. Watenabe is a calmer actor, and we remain in some doubt as to what he will do under the final scene.

There are only two changes to the movie: the inclusion of a subplot involving the Ainu, the native people of Hokkaido. Their inclusion feels quite natural, and fits well with the story. And, in this film the main character is asked by a stranger, the old man, to join the trip. In Eastwood's film he is asked by the young stranger, and then Eastwood convinces his old partner, and good friend, to join them. This certainly deepens the bond, and Eastwood's ensuing actions at the conclusion of the film has greater emotion resonance.

I saw the movie with my brother (who had seen it) and my sister (who had not seen it). Both enjoyed it greatly. It is the rare Western in which the female characters are not passive, though their treatment by other characters is horrid. Visually, the movie is very beautiful. As can be understood from the rest of the review, the movie features scenes that are difficult to watch, but it is always necessary, and most adults should be able to watch it. An excellent movie, this is a film for both fans of the original and those who are interested in something new.

TIFF Day 5: The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Him and Her

TIFF Day 5 was a real testament to my commitment to the fest--exhausted after seeing 6 films the first weekend, I skipped out on law school to see the premiere of Ned Benson's The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Him and Her starring Jessica Chastain and James McAvoy. The reason for the "Him and Her" tagged on to the end of the title is because the movie is in 2 parts, from 2 different perspectives: one from his perspective, and the other from hers. Each part (his and hers) is 90 minutes, and so the entire film is 3 hours long. I don't mind long movies, but it was clear from the insanely distracting audience that most people couldn't deal with the length.

That is both the wonderful and blood-boiling thing about seeing films at a festival. A lot of your own reaction to the movie depends on what the overall reaction from the rest of the audience is. Sometimes, it is electrifying to view a film with hundreds of strangers who all feel the same as you. Unfortunately, this was not one of those times. I swear I felt like I was in a room full of 1000 7 year old boys with ADHD. So much moving and getting up and checking phones and ringing phones and etc. It was so frustrating and definitely affected my viewing experience. Despite that however, I still really enjoyed the movie and think that it's a really beautiful way to tell the story of 2 people in a relationship.

The story explores the relationship of Eleanor (Chastain) and Connor (McAvoy), a couple in their early 30s who have been together 7 years. The prologue introduces them as a young couple in love (and we see some more of this side of the relationship through flashbacks) but the bulk of the movie takes place six months after a horrible tragedy in their lives: the death of their baby son.

It becomes clear that Connor is trying his hardest to move forward and go through the normal every day motions, but that Eleanor is unable to do that. So she "disappears" and leaves him. Most of the rest of "his" story is Connor trying to find Eleanor-where did she go, and why, and how can he make things better?

"Her" story answers at least some of those questions, but presents the audience with more questions about Eleanor, and her relationship with Connor, and both of their pasts.

Most of the scenes in "him" and "her" do not overlap, but show how each character is dealing with their lives apart from one another and their interactions with other people (friends, family, co-workers, etc). But the few scenes which are common to both parts (him and hers) are the most interesting. Although extremely similar, there are little differences-dialogue, the way they speak to each other, their attitudes etc-reminding us of the fact that despite shared experiences, we all experience things differently, and memory is a creation of our own construction. I really love those parts of the film.

The film has a fantastic supporting cast which includes SNL's Bill Hader as Connor's best friend, Viola Davis as Eleanor's teacher, and Ciarán Hinds as Connor's dad. I still haven't figured out exactly how I feel about the relationship and chemistry between Connor and Eleanor as characters, and James and Jessica as actors. It's not that there isn't chemistry, it might just be that they seem so different from one another both in real life and in the characters they play. But I think that might be part of the point of the movie: what happens when you fall in love with someone who is so different from you and it seems to work for quite some time, but then a tragedy occurs and you both spiral in opposite directions? Can you stay together? Does the love matter? Can you move forward? These are interesting questions I think the movie prompts. It is definitely worth seeing.

On a side note: in the Q and A, Jessica talked about how her and the director have been good friends for 10 years and that he wrote the Eleanor character specifically for her which is pretty interesting. Also, I found Jessica Chastain so distractingly beautiful in the movie (maybe I always do though? but it might also have something to do with the fact that one of the lawyer's I worked with (and who is a total cold fish/alien) looks shockingly similar to her).

For an interesting 2 minute interview from the fest with the director and James and Jessica (and for other interviews from The Hollywood Reporter lounge at TIFF, see here

Gravity review (by the other A Mrk!)

The movie Gravity, directed by Alfonso Cuaron and starring Sandra Bullock, is a triumph in every way. It is impossible to fully describe the technical accomplishment of the film, and within that, the degree of difficulty of Bullock's performance. Both Cuaron's direction and Bullock's acting are standouts for their professions.

The movie is the shortest great film ever. The first scene is the beginning of the story, every second from then is needed, and the last scene is the story's end. I cannot think of any film which tells its story in such a straightforward way. In the Q & A that followed Cuaron mentioned that the original cover page of the screenplay said: "A 3D suspense film in 90 minutes". It's the only time the length has been a vital part of the conception of the movie that I can remember. It shows the care and understanding Cuaron put into the movie, and that he never wanted to show off his skills, just to tell the story he had - which is a short, sharp one.


The look of the film is both awe-inspiring and yet never overtakes the story. The opening scene of the movie is a 13 minute continuous take. Unlike the battle-scene shot from Cuaron's Children of Men, which felt forced and unnatural, the scene feels completely right, perhaps because of the floating feel of zero-g means the movement of the camera necessary for a continuous take feels normal. The use of 3D is outstanding and adds enormously to the movie. And in many shots beautiful Earth forms the background, seen in darkness and daylight, sea and land, often with the brilliant chains of cities's lights.

But the most impressive aspect is the zero-g. Especially in the scene when Bullock has to work her way through the Russian space station, the feeling of floating is accomplished effortlessly. You almost have to remind yourself to notice it it feels so natural. Which brings us now to Bullock. Her acting was accomplished when she was attached by 12 wires which pulled and pushed her to simulate  no gravity. On top of this, virtually none of the movie was actually present around her. So she is accomplishing all her acting while being moved by wires in all three directions while remembering where each part of the set will be added in above and below her, left and right of her, and in front and behind her. She delivers a winning, outstanding performance, perfect from start to finish.

But not forgotten is George Clooney. Unique amongst A-list male actors Clooney happily accepts a supporting role. The scenes between the two actors are effortlessly done, whether under pleasant conversation or life-threatening danger. In the Q & A, Bullock mentioned that the dialogue in one of her excellent scenes was in fact written by Clooney. She and Cuaron had been struggling with the lines, and that night Clooney just decided to help out and emailed his own version, which is what they used.

TIFF wonderfully invited two real astronauts to see the screening, Dr. Roberta Bondar and Cmdr. Chris Hadfield. Hadfield was actually asked a question as to realism of the film and said the film was great. Cuaron admitted to a bit of nerves to hearing that question, but Hadfield confirmed the movie's excellent work.

The audience for this movie is everybody.  It offers suspense without violence and a wonderful, central female performance. Complimenting the technical side of movies sometimes turns people off, but this movie is so beautiful, and feel of being in space is so marvellouslly done, that it could be watched as a silent movie and enjoyed. Unlike anything you have seen before, one of the best movies of the last ten years, and maybe the best technical work since Star Wars in 1977.  Gravity is what movies are meant to be.

TIFF Day 3 - You Are Here review (a post by the other A Mrk!)

The movie You Are Here, written and directed by Mad Men's Matthew Weiner, and starring Owen Wilson, Zack Galifianakis and Amy Poelher, helps us prove that Weiner cannot write movies, cannot write comedies, and cannot write women. This movie is the worst waste of acting talent since Ocean's 12. Those who have accused the Mad Men's creator of sexism will find plenty of ammunition here as well.

The film's plot is that Galifianakis and Poelher's father has died and they return for the reading of the will, with Galifiankas accompanied by a friend, played by Owen Wilson. Both men play their normal types, but Poelher is unfortunately miscast as cold and humourless. Also present is their father's widow, a much younger woman who is suspected of being a gold-digger. After Galifiankas is left the bulk of the estate, including money and the beautiful rural farm he owned, Poelher's character begins the process of legally wrestling the money back.

The movie features a series of tone changes and bizarre contradictions, including when Galifiankas's character spends the middle third of the movie wanting to create a non-profit society on the land, and then - without explanation - decides to give the land to Wilson's character and let his sister demolish their father's historic store. These contradictions continue in a sequence with an Amish family. Galifiankas runs away, naked, across the farmers' fields and is taken in by an Amish family. The father stops working to kindly take his horse and buggy into town to let Galifiankas's family know. After Galifiankas's sister arrives the following exchange occurs between these two strangers:

      Poelher's character: Do you pray to God for things you want?
     Amish man: Of course. 
      Poelher: What happens if you don't believe in God? I'm trying to get pregnant. 
     Amish man: Maybe it's because you don't believe in God that you can't get pregnant. 
  
WTF? Again, these two people have never met. Why would they have this conversation? And the Amish man has just been very kind - why would he say something so cruel?

The misogyny continues with an idiotic subplot in which Owen Wilson's character tries to look in at his neighbour as she undresses. After several failed attempts, by the end of the movie he succeeds in seeing her, only for her to notice him. Her response - to being spied on by a strange man when she is naked - is to model herself nude for him to look at her. What woman would possibly react that way?

Poelher, an actress of humour and intelligence and a woman of clear kindness, should never be in a part or movie like this. At the post-screening Q & A she appeared embarrassed, though she was very funny and gracious with the audience. She has always stood up as a feminist, so perhaps she was unaware of some of the plot. Neither Galifiankas nor Wilson (neither in attendance) contribute anything beyond low-end schtick. Bizarrely, Weiner, who was present, did not appear to find anything wrong with the movie at all and seemed proud of it. Also worthy of criticism is TIFF, who watched this piece of shit and included it, presumably based on its star power. 

TIFF Day 4: The marathon Rush line for GRAVITY!

I know that I previously wrote about how 12 years a slave was a hot ticket item at TIFF that was difficult to get your hands on, but honestly, that was nothing compared to the demand for a ticket to Gravity, Alfonso Cuaron's new space thriller starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. There were 4 public screenings for Gravity, all of which were sold out the morning tickets went on sale. There was also a screening for press and industry which was in such high demand that the festival had to schedule an additional press screening. Needless to say, getting a ticket to the premiere was gonna be a doozy. Something that only crazy diehard lunatic TIFF fans could pull off-good thing that's what me and my oldest bro do best.

We decided that for the 6:30pm screening at the Princess of Wales theatre (capacity 2000), we would have to arrive at noon, and so we went about committing to a good 6.5 hours of waiting in line. As seasoned TIFF goers, we came prepared: blanket, snacks, drinks, clothes, books, crossword, a laptop, and even an environmental caselaw book!

The crazy thing is (especially after the crazy rainfall on Saturday) that sitting on John Street facing west into the blaring afternoon sun, it was INSANELY HOT. Hot to the point where I marched my jeans and sweater wearing ass down the street to Marshall's department store and bought a weird blue maxi dress and wore it out of the store (see picture at left). On a side-note about the dress, I'm very happy to report (as I try not to buy things made outside of NA) that it was made in Canada! Hurrah! Also notice mine and my brother's matching Mrk smile-frowns (thanks Norah for pointing this out!)

6.5 hours is a long time to wait in line, especially with some of the weirdos who rush at TIFF (I don't think I can talk about them-I want to try and repress those memories).

It's enough time to read legal cases and write 2 page reports!

Me and Al Mrk shared an Indian dinner picnic on the sidewalk! A Mrk has gotta eat!

As the time drew closer to 6:30pm, there were a few concerns in the rush line about some interlopers trying to bud in line. It almost became a vigilante situation on my behalf, but thankfully (?) it didn't come to that. A lot of people in front of us in line ended up getting free tickets (so frustrating!) which actually helped us out b/c it meant that we were number 11 and 12 in the rush line of 200 people and were bound to get in.

And get in we did! Actually, we even beat Sandra Bullock into the theatre, as she was still on the press line when we walked in.













SO relieved to make it in! Don't we look great in our 3D glasses?




Okay, on to the movie. It has now been 2 days since I saw the film and I am still struggling with finding a way in which to talk about it. Part of me thinks the movie is so good, that my brain isn't smart enough to even go there, but I'll try.

Now let me tell you about how this movie looks. The whole thing is in space, some scenes are inside a space station or space craft, but a lot of it is just out and about in outer-fucking-space. As there is no gravity in space, every scene is basically Sandra Bullock floating around in a zero gravity environment. Now, if I were a much dumber person than I actually am, I would have said that the director and crew took a spaceship up to space and filmed everything that happened in the movie, and that Sandra Bullock really wore a space suit and floated and flew around space doing crazy stuff. That's how real everything looks. It looks so real, that you don't even question the reality of it.

Then you start thinking about how they actually filmed the movie, and you realize that none of it is real. NONE OF IT. This is something I still have trouble with in terms of understanding-like if there is nothing there to film with a video camera, how do you make it show up on the screen (and this is why I don't work in film!) And they didn't even film it against a green screen. Sandra Bullock had to film every scene and shot with nothing around her and nothing to react to, and do all of it on wires (to make it look like she was in a no gravity situation) and have the rest of her actions animated in afterwards. I found out today that she didn't even wear the space suit in most of the scenes b/c it was too heavy to move around in, so someone had to go in and paint the space suit on her body in every single frame of the movie. At the Q and A, Bullock mentioned that 250 people worked on each frame of the film, EACH FRAME. This film, just from the technical and visual standpoints, is groundbreaking cinema. It is a game changer. But the best thing is that you don't even think about that while watching the movie. It just looks so perfect and real.

As some of you might already know, I only have 2 fears on this earth: the first is vomiting, and the second is outer-space. As this film is about the possibility of being stranded in space, it literally is the culmination of all of my nightmares. The movie is 90 minutes long (which is fantastic b/c I think all movies are too long these days) and I spent every single second of those 90 minutes with sweaty palms, feeling sick to my stomach like I was gonna have a heart attack, that is how suspenseful the entire film is. There really is not one wasted scene or frame in this movie. It is perfect in that respect.




















I really can't do this film justice by writing about it. You must see it. It was worth every minute of the 6.5 hours I waited to see it. To be honest, I would wait in line for another 6.5 hours to see it again. The film has changed everything. And Sandra Bullock is incredible in it, especially when you actually break down the kind of acting she had to do-all purely imaginary with nothing and no one around to react to or guide her actions. It is acting in the purest form. She will absolutely be nominated this year for Best Actress, and I would say that if she hadn't won 3 years ago, she would win this year. I think she deserves to win this year, but you know how Oscar season goes-it ain't about who the best was!

Oh yeah, one last thing about how awesome the premiere was: they invited Canadian astronauts Roberta Bondar and Chris Hadfield to the screening, and during the Q and A, Chris Hadfield jumped on stage and said that although his time in space was much easier than in the movie, Alfonso Cuaron made it look perfect visually.

TIFF Day 3: You are Here, aka: I spent $45 to see this movie, and all I got was a shitty coffee mug (and a glimpse of Amy Poehler)

One would think when you hear that Owen Wilson, Zach Galifinakas, and Amy Poehler are in a movie together written and directed by Matthew Weiner (of Mad Men), it's a pretty safe bet to be good right?

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good God this movie was awful. I should have known when neither Owen Wilson, nor Zach G showed up for the premiere that this shit was bad (although it was later revealed that Zach G's wife went into labour and that's why he wasn't there. Fair-what's the Butterscotch Stallion's excuse though?)

I seriously would have walked out of this movie if Amy Poehler wasn't there. I basically sat through it just so I could hear Amy say a few words at the Q and A (which she did, and she didn't disappoint, not like the film did)

I actually couldn't tell you what the film is about, or whether it was supposed to be funny or serious. Also, I don't know or understand anything about the characters-who they were, what they wanted, why they did anything they did. Throw in a whole whack of misogyny and some bizarre Amish symbolism, and that's what this was. 

I would try to elaborate, but I honestly don't even want to think about the movie-that's how bad it was (I also think my brother Alex is writing a post on how bad the film was, so I'll let him vent instead of me). 

So disappointing. I could tell Amy Poehler was somewhat embarrassed (or was that just me projecting?) But she was cute and funny, and that is what I'll have to take away from this experience.

I've never watched Mad Men before, and after seeing this piece of shit movie, and the way Matthew Weiner presents women, I don't think I'll be watching it anytime soon.

Oh yeah, and here is the mug I got for $45:

TIFF Day 3: 12 years a Slave

I thankfully nabbed tickets to the second screening of 12 years a slave-it was a hot ticket item at the fest, and has already been predicted as a front-runner in the Oscar Best Picture race this year. Waiting in line in the pouring rain was pretty shitty, as was sitting next to a total sociopathic bitch in the theatre (don't get me started on this), but it paid off as director Steve McQueen, and actors Viola Davis, Lupita Nyong'o, Michael Fassbender, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Sarah Paulson all showed up for the Q and A after the movie.

Let me first off say how happy I am that they came to the second viewing. This is practically unprecedented at the fest (I've only ever seen this happen twice: Soderberg came to The Informant and Terry Gilliam came to Dr. Parnasus) and it makes me crazy. The stars have come all this way to present the film, they are in town, probably in the neighbourhood, have drivers and assistants etc to organize all this shit for them, and it only takes about 20 minutes out of their schedule to do a Q and A. Why not do it, especially when it will make everyone at the movie so happy and give them an experience they'll never forget.  I vow that if I ever have a movie at the festival in this life or another, I will attend all the screenings!

On to the movie-it was powerful. I'm sure most people know that the film is based on the true story of black violinist named Solomon Northup (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor who I'm sure has a pretty good shot at Best Actor) living in NY state with his family in the 1840's as a freeman. He is kidnapped and sold into slavery, deemed a Georgia runaway, and spends 12 years as a slave, the majority of which is under Master Epps, a disgusting despicable man played perfectly by Michael Fassbender, before a Canadian abolitionist (Brad Pitt) helps him Solomon regain his freedom.

I hesitate to say that I "enjoyed" the film, as it is a really harsh movie that is both difficult and uncomfortable to watch. I'm glad however that it was hard to sit through because I think that is exactly what a movie about slavery should be. The two most powerful scenes in the film for me were the two that were excruciating to watch. The first is when a number of white men on the plantation try to kill Solomon by hanging him. He is spared at the last second, but is left in the noose, hanging from the tree, with his feet barely touching the ground for the remainder of the day. The scene is long, and you see other slaves in the background going about their day, trying to not react to his situation at all b/c they know there is nothing that can be done. The second is when Master Epps orders Solomon to lash another slave, Patsey (who Epps himself is in love with) practically to death.

There are only 3 somewhat "feel good" scenes in the movie, and Brad Pitt is in two of them (I don't think that is a coincidence as he produced the film- if it wins Best Picture, he will get the Oscar). As most of you know, I am forever a Pitt apologist and genuine Brangalunatic, but even so I think he works well in the two scenes-one challenging the very idea of slavery to Master Epps, and the other agreeing to write a letter for Solomon to help him gain his free papers. So what if he wanted to be one of the good guys? It works for him. Not to mention, Pitt has had really interesting and genuine things to say about the film and about human trafficking in general. Watch this great interview from the red carpet the other night here as well as this great blog post from the Globe and Mail about how nice he is (I had to get that in somewhere didn't I?)

Anyway, the more I think about it, after seeing this movie, and McQueen's treatment of slavery, it makes me more resentful of Django Unchained and Tarantino's self indulgence that ruined that film (but that's a whole other conversation). Spike Lee's controversial tweet from last year also comes to mind:

Anyhow, the film is chock-a-block full of famous actors, most who are only in the film for a few scenes. I found the casting mostly good, and where it really counts (the lead roles) it is bang on perfect, but sometimes with so many famous faces, especially in a serious period piece, casting starts to distract, and it brings you out of the suspension of disbelief. Prime example: Taran Killiam from Saturday Night Live playing one of the men who kidnaps Solomon. It was bad, and didn't work. I also didn't like the casting of Paul Giamatti (who I love as an actor) and don't understand it-he was only in 2 scenes and they don't work that well either.

My brother reminded me today of how that was a major problem with the movie Lincoln-and I totally agree. It's impossible to believe Joseph Gordon Levitt as Abraham Lincoln's son, or Girls' Adam Driver as a morse code interpreter. Sometimes you just need to find faces that aren't so familiar. I digress.

Chiwetel Ejiofor was incredible. I'm not sure really how to talk about his performance, it's something you have to see for yourself. I think he played the violin himself though in the film, which is super impressive. Michael Fassbender's performance too, is simply indredible (I predict he wins best supporting actor for this-the Academy making it up to him for not nominating him for his previous collaboration with McQueen-Shame). I think Master Epps is the most disgusting character I've ever seen on screen-and I know that is a difficult thing to be able to portray well.

One of the questions at the Q and A was about the female characters (and thank f*ck b/c I was starting to get a little annoyed with how many questions were aimed at the one white man on stage) and all three actresses present had really interesting things to say--Lupita Nyong'o especially (I believe this is the first movie she's ever been in!). She plays Patsey, Epps' slave mistress who he loves to the point of hating her, and who is abused and tortured by Epps' wife (played by Sarah Paulson) out of her sheer embarrassment and hatred that her husband loves a slave more than her. Nyong'o plays the role with such dignity and strength, it is hard to believe it's her first film.

See this movie. It'll be everywhere for months to come, and is really a remarkable piece of filmmaking.

TIFF DAY 2: Jason Reitman's Liveread of Boogie Nights

Jason Reitman's live read of American Beauty at last years TIFF (staring Brian fucking Cranston as the lead!) blew my mind, and ended up being my favourite thing I saw at the festival. 

So, when it was announced this year that Reitman would be bringing his live read again to Toronto, me and my brothers were so excited, and placed getting tickets to the event as our number one top priority. 

The way it works is that you buy tickets without actually knowing what the screenplay being read is going to be, or who the actors taking part will be. You have faith, and you bust out your credit card. 

In the days approaching the read, Reitman dropped hints (and then eventually announcements) on his Twitter. This was the first clue:

Me and Alex immediately thought Pulp Fiction. But then it was announced: BOOGIE NIGHTS! Definitely not my favourite film, but one that lends itself well to a live read: good dialogue and multiple roles. Also, I started gossip dreaming about who the leads could be: Clooney as the creepy Burt Reynolds character, Kate Winslet as Julianne Moore's character, James McCavoy as Dirk Diggler!

But then the tweets came, and it was a god damned nightmare: Dane Cook...Olivia Wilde (who can't even act authentically like a pretty 20something in most of her roles despite being a pretty 20something)...Josh Brolin...WHAT THE FUCK I thought-all of my most hated actors (although I do admit I supported the Josh Brolin casting from the get go-who to play an old sleazy porn producing dick better than him?) This is gonna be a disaster! And then the bomb dropped:

Jesse Eisenberg is not only an insufferable prick (see here in case you don't know-oh god so cringeworthy!), he is literally the least likely porn star of all time. Him? HIM? Oh god, we were NOT excited about this. I was actually nervous, b/c I didn't want to be embarrassed for Reitman, for the fest, for TIFF.

BUT, I will be the first to admit that I was completely WRONG. The casting worked so well (perhaps this is why Reitman is a successful director and I, unfortunately, am not). 

Reitman, while introducing the film, told us that he first saw Boogie Nights at a test screening at the mall in Toronto as a teenager (and that it was the best thing he's ever seen!) How he, as a young teen, got into this movie is beyond me!

He also introduced the cast, and Jesse Eisenberg specifically as the "first Jewish Dirk Diggler."


The wonderful thing about these live reads is how funny they are. Boogie Nights is not a funny movie at all, but I was literally dying laughing (as was the crowd) the entire time. Hearing lines like "that is a huge cock" delivered by Olivia Wilde in front of her fiancé Jason Sudekis and a live audience is beyond hysterical. And the acting was bang on (pardon the pun).

It really is incredible to witness live acting talent. The raw talent that everyone on stage (Olivia Wilde included!) is astounding, especially considering that this is completely unrehearsed and most actors probably only had time to maybe read the screen play over once before hand. This performance again solidified the fact that comedians and comedic actors can really do no wrong. Dane Cook, who played multiple parts, was fantastic. So was Jason Sudekis. And Olivia Wilde was really good too (why this doesn't ever come across on screen I don't know). You could really really see why Josh Brolin has had such a long career as well--he out-performed most of those on stage, and seemingly effortlessly.

Now for Jesse Eisenberg. He was good. Really good actually. And I HATE admitting that b/c I really despise him. Obviously he brings a much different feel to the part than Mark Walhberg (understatement of the year) but the creepy little guy can really act. And it seems so fucking effortless. That's the most interesting thing about these reads, just seeing how easy it seems for them, and knowing how difficult it is to give an authentic performance without any preparation.

My favourite parts were when Jesse sang the shitty songs that Dirk Diggler records in the studio, and when Jason Sudekis, playing some crazy drug addict, sang whole verses to some 80s song. Amazing.

The only thing I wish is that they would stay and answer questions afterwards, but after 2 hours of acting, I can understand why they don't. This will definitely always be high on the priority list for me for TIFF every year!!!

TIFF Day 2: Kristen Wiig in Hateship Loveship

Day 2 started off with a small independent film made by Liza Johnson, called Hateship Loveship. The film is adapted from a short story, "Hateship, Friendship, Courtship, Loveship, Marriage" by Canada's own superstar writer Alice Munroe and stars Kristen Wiig in the lead role as Johanna, a quiet loner who works as a live in caregiver. 

The first scene of the movie shows Johanna caring for a sick elderly woman, who immediately passes away, meaning Johanna must find a new job. Her pastor sets her up with a gig looking after a teenage girl Sabitha (played by the young girl from the Coen brother's True Grit, Hailee Steinfeld) who lives with her grandfather Mr. McCaully (the husky voiced Nick Nolte) because her father Ken (number one hunk Guy Pearce) is an addict and all round disaster (and also responsible for her mother's death in DUI accident).

Sabitha and her best friend do what teenage girls do best--be bitches--and hatch a mean-spirited plan to write love letters/emails to Johanna from Ken, all for their own amusement. The plan gets out of hand-culminating with Johanna leaving the McCaully residence to go and live with Ken in Chicago at his run down motel, thinking that they will start their life together. Johanna shows up, and of course Ken knows nothing about what she's talking about or why she's there. The story goes on from there...

When introducing the film, director Johnson called Wiig her creative and life muse-a very kind thing to say. But you can see why Johnson has such kind words for Wiig-not only does this film prove her acting chops, she is also so so lovely in person. It really is astonishing how well most comedians/comedic actors do at drama. Unfortunately I don't think it works the other way. 

At the Q and A afterwards, there was a mic/sound problem and Wiig ran on stage holding 4 remote microphones for Johnson-it was so funny and cute. She also spoke about how she would love the opportunity to act in more dramatic roles. After her performance in this film, I don't think she'll have a problem getting work. Unfortunately, Guy Pearce wasn't there, as he is filming in Australia. When Johnston announced that fact, the crowd groaned. Pearce is really good in the movie too-and the chemistry him and Wiig have together is sweet, uncomfortable, and almost excruciating at times. It works though, and I didn't mind seeing him play a down and out shitbag guy trying to get his life together (it helps that in most of the movie he is only in his boxershorts!) 

The film itself is quiet and slow moving, but very dignified and definitely worthwhile. It has a happy ending (which at times, you aren't sure is going to happen) and it's a feel good experience!

TIFF 2013!!!! Day 1 Recap: Blue is the Warmest Colour

I'm busting out the blog again in order to discuss my favourite 10 days of the year (TIFF) which set off and shape my favourite singular day of the year (the Oscars).

As usual, I am seeing a minimum of 10 movies (and perhaps one or 2 more if the Rush tickets gods treat me well). I have effectively dropped out of my last year of law school for the next 10 days. That's okay right?

The first film I saw this year was the much anticipated "Blue is the Warmest Colour" which won the highest honour (Palme D'Or) at the Cannes film festival this year. The award wasn't given to just the the film, but collectively to the two lead actresses as well, which I believe has never been done before. After seeing the film last night, I understand why the committee made this choice. The acting is some of the best I've ever seen. I actually hesitate to call it "acting" because it is so genuine and honest, that you get lost in these 2 women's performances. The conversations they have, the sex, the tenderness, everything that happens between them seems like the least scripted thing ever. 

The film is a 3 hour love story between 2 young women that spans the better part of a decade. We meet Adele when she is still in high school, and clearly uncomfortable with herself. She is beautiful (I think a spitting image of Angelina Jolie as a teenager) and her friends tease her about it, pressuring her to date a cute guy at school. She does, reluctantly, wanting to prove to her friends and herself that she is a "normal" teenage girl. On her way to her first date with this guy from school she has a "love at first sight" moment passing by Emma, an older, cooler, artsy woman with blue hair. This moment becomes her sexual identity unraveling. In the brief moment on screen, you can tell that it undoes her in every way. Eventually, Adele manages to find Emma again by "wandering" purposely into a "dyke" bar-their meeting is electrifying. They only speak for a few minutes, but long enough for Emma to find out where Adele goes to high school. Emma eventually goes to Adele's school to find her, which culminates in an intensely homophobic confrontation between Adele and her group of girl friends.

The film continues from there and explores the relationship between the two young women--the beginning, the middle, and the end--including the sexual awakening Adele experiences with Emma. The sex scene between them lasts a good 10 minutes in the film and is probably the most intensely realistic lesbian sex ever captured on film (also the reason the film has gotten a lot of buzz). How these two actresses were able to do this on film is beyond me-it is so intimate and private and requires so much trust, I really honestly don't know how they filmed this.

During the Q and A period after the film, someone asked about how they could reach this level of intimacy with one another, and the actress who played Adele talked about how it wasn't really acting-they just lost themselves in it. When you see it, you'll know what she means. It is impossible to not believe that these women love each other, both in the film, and in person. It's a beautiful thing to see.

The relationship between Adele and Emma reminded me a lot of the Dionne Brand long poem I wrote my Master's thesis on. The poem is Brand's coming out in writing; she talks about her first female lover and how that experience will never leave you. One of my favourite lines from the poem that has always stuck with me is: "Someone said, this is your first lover, you will never want to leave her." This film is a perfect representation of that sentiment.

I wrote quickly on facebook last night after getting home from the viewing that the movie was "one of the most heartbreakingly beautiful films I've seen in a long time. It tenderly shows the all encompassing pain and pleasure of falling in love for the first time, and what it is to find in someone else what it feels like to belong, when you didn't know that feeling existed."

I still feel that way. The film was beautiful, and didn't feel 3 hours long. See it, even if it feels like you've been through heartbreak and a breakup at the end of the film. Sometimes that can be therapeutic.