Podcasting: Iron Man 3

A little movie called Iron Man 3 hit the big screen last weekend and promptly started making a LOT of money. I'm just sitting here quietly, waiting for my back-end points from the total gross in Zimbabwe to start to add up. I've got a lot riding on this one!

I wasn't able to be a part of the main episode, but was lucky enough to be a part of a pretty terrific additional segment where we got into some spoilery territory (right after I introduced Aaron to Moulin Rouge! for the first time!)

Don't forget to share/post/link/tweet or whatever it is you do with things you like. Enjoy!

This episode features: 

• Aaron Neuwirth of The Code Is Zeek and Why So Blu?
• Abraham Moua of The Walrus Moose
• Brandon Peters of Naptown Nerd
• Germain Lussier of SlashFilm

To The Wonder

Terrence Malick is the rare artist who knows exactly what he wants to say, and is able to take all of the time he needs to say it. Never one for being bound to someone else's ideas of what he should do, he's marched to the beat of his own drum almost from the get-go. Unfortunately for us, that means he's only released 6 feature films in 43 years.

So, when word got out that his next film was releasing only 1 year after 2011's The Tree of Life, one of the most stunning films of recent years (and, in the eyes of this critic, the best of that year if not of the young century), we rejoiced.

To The Wonder tells the story of 4 people. A Midwesterner (Ben Affleck) and a Parisian (Olga Kurylenko) fall in love, and their relationship turns turbulent when they move back to the United States. When they decide to spend time apart, he begins a relationship with a local woman (Rachel McAdams). All the while, the local priest (Javier Bardem), tries to serve the community while dealing with a crisis of faith.

My expectations were high, particularly given the film's two spellbinding trailers (found here and here). With his last two films, Malick's gotten to a point that his trailers would be Academy Award winning short films if they were released as such.

Unfortunately, To The Wonder suffers from a lack of narrative cohesion. I think that a lot of it has to do with Malick's reliance on voiceover. I'm a big fan of the technique when it's incorporated well, but it's used to excess here. There's very little actual dialogue present, and that hurts the film. When Affleck and Kurylenko are arguing, I'd really like to hear what they're arguing about instead of listening to ambient music and her voice speaking softly about how much he completes her.

It's frustrating, because you get to a point where you just want the characters to stop talking about what's happening and start telling you what's happening. I found myself asking a few fundamental questions that additional dialogue would have aided immensely. Why do these women fall for Affleck's character? He's moody, not terribly supportive, and even abusive. Why would anyone treat Kurylenko's character badly?  She's vivacious, sweet, and so wholly devoted to him that it boggles the mind that he wouldn't move heaven and earth to keep her near. Instead of expository dialogue, what we get is whole lot of brooding, glowering, staring, and slow turns around one another like some kind of extremely subdued flamenco.

There are certain aspects of the film that are first-rate. The photography is fantastic. If they continue their collaboration, Malick and Emmanuel Lubezki might go down as one of the all-time great director/cinematographer combos. There are individual shots here that will take one's proverbial breath away. In particular, there's one particular shot of dancing light reflected off of a chandelier that literally made me sit up and stare at the screen in wonderment.

The performances by Kurylenko and McAdams deserve praise, particularly given how thin the plot seems to be. In particular, Kurylenko's performance is extremely solid. In the absence of dialogue, her face communicates a wealth of emotion. 

I also really liked Bardem's character. In a time when Catholic priests certainly haven't been regarded in the most positive light, his character is a fundamentally good man who cares deeply about serving his community. While I liked the bits about his crisis of belief, I found myself surprised at how heavily the film comes to communicate a heavily Christian message toward the end. From what little I know of him, I believe that Malick is a Christian himself, but I found such a pointed message to be a bit of a strange choice, particularly given how universal the spiritual themes were in The Tree of Life.

Additionally, there are individual sequences that highlight Malick's abundant gifts as a filmmaker. In particular, the film's closing sequence is beautiful. It involves a woman walking, walking, walking before finally turning to see something. At that point, I felt as though I were in a place that I knew. I only wish that the rest of the film had seen that kind of cohesion.

Malick's come to a place where he's not terribly interested in conventional notions of plot and story structure. I understand (and applaud!) that. The problem arises when he doesn't leave enough bread crumbs for the viewer to be able to put the pieces together in any kind of a meaningful way. Here, as in The Tree of Life, Malick employs a kind of omnipotent perspective. While it mostly seems to move forward in one fairly consistent timeline, To The Wonder does skip around in a way that confuses things, particularly toward the end. In the face of many seemingly needless contradictions, my friend and I were abundantly confused about what the state of Affleck and Kurylenko's relationship was when the film ended. 

I certainly don't regret seeing the film, but while a film from Terrence Malick is always worth the effort, To The Wonder seems to me to be a big missed opportunity. That said, I look forward to further reading and discussion in the hope I'll be able to find further illumination.

2 1/2 stars (out of 5)

Roger Ebert (1943-2013)

How do you encompass your feelings about someone who meant so much to you? I don’t know if it’s possible, but I’ve got to try. Roger Ebert was the only film critic I ever really loved. I’ve got a bunch that I respect, still more that I enjoy reading/listening to, but Roger was the only one that I loved. To read his work was to drink deeply at the well with someone who knew a lot about what he was talking about and had the grace to want to share it with you in a way that you could understand.

I knew that I loved movies from a young age, and was fairly excited to learn that I could turn that love into a Bachelor’s Degree. I took a strange path to that degree, caused in some ways by my own timidity coupled with some stubbornness and a desire to avoid a heavy workload. There is some debate about exactly what the word “heavy” means in this context. Anyhow, I found a way to graduate while avoiding the classes that would force me to watch a ton of movies every week, having seen fellow students struggle to keep up and not wanting to be pushed into watching films that I didn’t want to.

I’d been a fan of “Siskel and Ebert” and later “Ebert and Roeper,” and had read Roger’s work for years, but something changed around the time I graduated from college. In reading more of his work, I wanted to start watching the movies that he was talking about. He didn’t just talk to movies from the last year or two and he didn’t just talk about American films. He talked about all kinds of films from all over the world and, if he loved the movie he was talking about, he passed that enthusiasm along. He was looking at films in a larger context than anyone else I was familiar with at the time. It wasn’t important what language was used, how much money was made, or how famous the filmmakers were. It only mattered if the film was good or not, and if that film had something of value to say about the human experience.

So, armed with Roger’s Great Movies list, a Netflix account, and an open mind, I started making my way through the films that he thought were important. It’s safe to say that I might not have encountered Kieslowski, Antonioni, Godard, Herzog, Bunuel, Truffaut, the Dardennes, or Ozu if not for Roger. It’s possible that I might have found them through some other avenue, but I wouldn’t have experienced them in the same way.

Roger had become my teacher. Many is the time I’ve watched a film from his list, found myself either bewildered or unconvinced, and turned to his writing to provide illumination. I will not say that my mind has been changed each time, but I almost always felt that I understood the film better after reading what he had to say.

I think his real gift as a critic came from the way that he thought about characters. In his mind, they were supposed to be real people, and that formed a large part of the foundation for his appreciation or aversion to a particular film. He would find ways to contextualize a character’s actions in such a way as to make you realize not only what was happening but also the magnitude of something that might have slipped right past you.

He fought against cancer for eleven years. He was a lucky man to have been able to hold it off for so long. If he was great before that, he became something different altogether after the surgeries that robbed him of his ability to speak. Left with no other recourse, he wrote and wrote and wrote, and it wasn’t only about the movies anymore. His blog was a thing of beauty, a mind in full flight, unfettered by limitation and filled to the brim. The first time I ever got to go to a Steak N Shake (years ago around 1 AM somewhere in Kentucky), I only had any idea of its existence because of the many times that Roger had gone into depth of his love for the place.

I never met him, but had the chance to speak with him once a few years ago through the web. He’d written a blog entry about Bergman (I think), I commented, and Roger responded. I’d read his blog since the beginning, but this was the first time that he’d ever responded to one of my comments. It meant a lot. Roger read and vetted every single comment on his blog, but only responded to a few. That one of mine got a response is something that I’ll always treasure.

As a film critic, I don’t think that you can do any better than Roger. More than that though, I think that he was a thoroughly decent person, and my heart goes out to his wife and family tonight.

Death is never easy, but part of what makes this so strange was the tone of last blog post, "A Leave of Presence." Even as talked about the recurrence of cancer in his body, he seemed to be so full of life and, more than anything, hope for the future. I had no idea that he was so close to the end. Maybe he didn't either. 

I know that he didn’t fear death, and I think that that must have been a great comfort. There is a certain kind of tranquility that comes from a man who knows that he has done enough in life to be satisfied. There are many things about Roger’s work that I admire and hope to be able to emulate in my own way, but I think that’s the quality of his that I most admire, along with his fundamental decency as a human being.  I hope that, when I face the end, I can look back as he did, know that I have done what I wanted to do, and be thankful for all that I have been given.

Roger taught me a lot. I am grateful for that. I miss him now, and I will miss him always.

-----

"‘Kindness’ covers all of my political beliefs. No need to spell them out. I believe that if, at the end of it all, according to our abilities, we have done something to make others a little happier, and something to make ourselves a little happier, that is about the best we can do. To make others less happy is a crime. To make ourselves unhappy is where all crime starts. We must try to contribute joy to the world. That is true no matter what our problems, our health, our circumstances. We must try. I didn't always know this, and am happy I lived long enough to find it out."

From Go Gentle Into That Good Night, posted on 5/2/2009.

Oscar Night 2013 - This Might Get Bumpy

This year's Oscar telecast will be met by a lot of uncertainty. Traditionally, the race solidifies into a pretty straightforward running order by this point, with eventual winners and also-rans clearly labeled. There are a plethora of categories this time around that are shrouded in mystery, and while I like my predictions/chances, I wouldn't be surprised if a handful of them turned out to be inaccurate. The writing categories, in particular, are particularly tough to predict . . . not to mention the strangest directorial race we've seen in years!

For my money, Emmanuelle Riva and Daniel Day-Lewis are the two titans this year that deserve the lion's share of the spoils. I'd also like to give some love to Quvenzhané Wallis. Her performance is the stuff that legends are made of. I work with kids, and, believe you me, most six year olds just aren't capable of stuff like that. 

I'll be interested to see what Seth MacFarlane does as host. While almost anything is better than the Franco/Hathaway debacle, I like my Family Guy in bits here and there and have a tough time sitting through an entire episode, and I hope that he doesn't take things too far in an attempt to be "edgy." 

Best Picture

• Amour
• Argo
• Beasts of the Southern Wild
• Django Unchained
• Les Miserables
• Life of Pi
• Lincoln
• Silver Linings Playbook
• Zero Dark Thirty

• Predicted winner: Argo
• If I was voting: Amour
  Possible upsets: Silver Linings Playbook
  Analysis: The momentum that Argo's picked up in recent months has been staggering. While an early favorite for an Oscar nomination out of the gate, this was one that I thought wouldn't really have the chops to compete against the likes of films like Zero Dark Thirty, Les Miserables, and Silver Linings Playbook. After picking up wins at the Golden Globes, Director's Guild, Producer's Guild, and BAFTAs, thinking that anything else is going to win at this juncture is pretty foolish. That said, if the Academy's feeling sentimental, I could see them pull a Saving Private Ryan and give the prize to Silver Linings Playbook. The difference, of course, is that Shakespeare in Love deserved that one.
  
  

  
  
  
  

  Directing

• "Amour" - Michael Haneke
• "Beasts of the Southern Wild" - Benh Zeitlin
• "Life of Pi" - Ang Lee
• "Lincoln" - Steven Spielberg
• "Silver Linings Playbook" - David O. Russell

• Predicted winner: Ang Lee
• If I was voting: Michael Haneke
  Possible upsets: Steven Spielberg, Michael Haneke, David O. Russell
  Analysis: Predicting this category's made more difficult than it ought to be by the absence of one man than it is by the actual presence of any of the nominees. Most of the circuit has given Ben Affleck the top directorial prize, despite his lack of a corresponding Oscar nomination. That really throws a monkey wrench in the proceedings, because it wouldn't ordinarily make a lot of sense to pick against Steven Spielberg, particularly when his film's got a league-leading 12 nominations. However, Affleck's DGA win really hurts the two frontrunners, Spielberg and Ang Lee more than anyone else. Personally, I like the scenario in which they split enough of the vote to allow Michael Haneke through, even though I think that's unlikely. Ultimately though, I think the DGA thing hurts Spielberg more than it hurts Lee, and I think he'll be pick up Oscar #2.
  
  

  
  
  
  

  Actor in a Leading Role

• Bradley Cooper in "Silver Linings Playbook"
• Daniel Day-Lewis in "Lincoln"
• Hugh Jackman in "Les Miserables"
• Joaquin Phoenix in "The Master"
• Denzel Washington in "Flight"
  
  Predicted winner: Daniel Day-Lewis
• If I was voting: Daniel Day-Lewis
  Possible upsets: Hugh Jackman, Denzel Washington (with the slightest of outside chances)
  Analysis: It seems like every time Daniel Day-Lewis is up for Oscar, I'm sitting here telling you that he's going to win, and nobody else has a chance. Not much else different this year. I think that, if anyone's really going to threaten, it's Jackman with a tiny hint of a threat from Denzel Washington. That said, if Day-Lewis doesn't win the prize, something's deeply wrong here. His work in Lincoln was staggering in the epic simplicity of its scope and the deeply heartfelt rendering of the character. This one is (and should be) his to lose.
  

  
  

  Actress in a Leading Role

• Jessica Chastain in "Zero Dark Thirty"
• Jennifer Lawrence in "Silver Linings Playbook"
• Emmanuelle Riva in "Amour"
• Quvenzhané Wallis in "Beasts of the Southern Wild"
• Naomi Watts in "The Impossible"

• Predicted winner: Jennifer Lawrence
• If I was voting: Emmanuelle Riva
  Possible upsets: Emmanuelle Riva, Jessica Chastain
  Analysis: This was seen originally to be a Lawrence/Chastain race, but Jennifer Lawrence has been picking up the majority of awards on the circuit to this point, and I really think that she's going to go all the way tonight. Now, she's a fine actress, and I liked her work in Silver Linings Playbook, but I think that the standout performance in that film was  easily Bradley Cooper's. Personally, I think this award should go to either Emmanuelle Riva or Quvenzhané Wallis. Riva's work is devastatingly nuanced in a piece that hurts, and was one of the single best bits of acting I've ever seen. To give the prize to Jennifer Lawrence tonight is a big mistake. That's not taking something away from Lawrence. She's a fine actress and has a long, successful career ahead of her. Riva is probably nearing the end of her career (if this isn't her final performance), and gave one of the performances of the young century. In 5 years, I think it's clear which performance will  still resonate. Both actresses are playing good tunes, it's just that Riva's playing a symphony. That said, it is her birthday tonight, so the Academy might just lean her way.
  
  
  Actor in a Supporting Role

• Alan Arkin in "Argo"
• Robert De Niro in "Silver Linings Playbook"
• Philip Seymour Hoffman in "The Master"
• Tommy Lee Jones in "Lincoln"
• Christoph Waltz in "Django Unchained"

• Predicted winner: Robert De Niro
• If I was voting: Tommy Lee Jones
  Possible upsets: Tommy Lee Jones, Christoph Waltz
  Analysis: This one is one of the single toughest categories to predict. My personal favorite, Tommy Lee Jones, has a good chance, but I don't think he'll be able to overcome the fact that Robert De Niro actually found a project that he liked enough to actually try to give a good performance. I'm also not ruling out Christoph Waltz. I'm really glad that he was the sole actor recognized for work in Django Unchained. A lot of people thought that DiCaprio would be the main contender from that thoroughly distasteful exercise in sadism, but I think that the Academy made the right choice. 
  
  
  Actress in a Supporting Role

• Amy Adams in "The Master"
• Sally Field in "Lincoln"
• Anne Hathaway in "Les Miserables"
• Helen Hunt in "The Sessions"
• Jacki Weaver in "Silver Linings Playbook"

• Predicted winner: Anne Hathaway
• If I was voting: Anne Hathaway
  Possible upsets: None.
  Analysis: I think this one's a done deal, folks, and it's well deserved. Her performance is fantastic. 

Here's the rest . . .

• Animated Feature Film: Wreck-it-Ralph
• Art Direction: Anna Karenina
• Cinematography: Life of Pi
• Costume Design: Anna Karenina
• Documentary (Feature): Searching for Sugar Man (I'd be remiss if I didn't give a shout out to The Invisible War, for which my friend Doug Blush was an editor. They just won the Independent Spirit Award for Best Documentary last night!
• Documentary (Short Subject): Open Heart
• Film Editing: Argo
• Foreign Language Film: Amour
• Makeup: Les Miserables
• Music (Original Score): Life of Pi
• Music (Original Song): Skyfall
• Short Film (Animated): Paperman
• Short Film (Live Action): Asad
• Sound Editing: Zero Dark Thirty
• Sound Mixing: Les Miserables
• Visual Effects: Life of Pi
• Writing (Adapted Screenplay): Silver Linings Playbook (but keep an eye on Argo)
• Writing (Original Screenplay): Amour (but keep an eye on Django Unchained. Amour is a long shot, but I have a feeling)

Above all though, I'm just happy that it's Oscar night. This is one of my favorite events of my year, and there are a lot of memories that go along with the territory. Mostly tonight, I'll be thinking of my mother, who was the one who used to turn the TV on every year even when we were too little to understand exactly what was going on. Love always.

Podcasting: Zero Dark Thirty

Good news! I thought that I was going to miss out on Out Now With Aaron and Abe's discussion of Zero Dark Thirty due to Sundance, but good fortune was on my side! I'm very glad to have been able to be a part of this one. The shownotes, in particular, are a veritable treasure trove of interesting bits of information. Make sure you take the time to check them out. 

You can listen to the entire podcast by clicking HERE to go to the episode's official page or by clicking the big ol' play button below. This discussion had a particularly good vibe. We were not only able to go into detail on the film, but also took the time to talk about Sundance/Slamdance as well as the upcoming Academy Awards.

Don't forget to share/post/link/tweet or whatever it is you do with things you like. Enjoy!

This episode features: 

• Aaron Neuwirth of The Code Is Zeek and Why So Blu?
• Abraham Moua of The Walrus Moose
• Jose Cordova of The Thoughtful Slacker
• Mark Johnson of The Awards Circuit

Tales from Park City - The Whole Shebang (2013)

Now that I've had several days to recuperate/thaw, I thought it'd be useful to archive Tales from Park City in a single post. To that end, you'll find a link to each piece below.

Tales From Park City - 2013

• Opening Day
  
  
• Unlikely Lunches, Jilted Lovers, and Broken Hearts
  
  
• Anger and Alternate Reality
  
  
• I Drank His Milkshake
  
  
• Dreams Come True At The End

If you're so inclined, you can find the full archive of last year's SmackDance column here.

----

Whenever I go to a festival, I take my notebook. There are just too many films to keep track of to trust my memory to keep everything straight. This year alone, I saw 13 feature-length and 30 short films. Unfortunately, I realized too late that I'd left my favorite notebook at home, so I had to pick up another one upon arrival. 

Despite not having my battle-tested notebook on hand, perhaps the single thing that's most special to me about this year's trip is that I was able to take notes all week with my mother's pen. It means more than words can express, and I am thinking of her tonight.

Tales From Park City - Dreams Come True At The End

The last day! 

My morning started off far too early. In anticipation of my pre-7 AM alarm, I tried to get some sleep by going to bed early, but things are tough when you're bunking with someone on a different schedule. Plus, I never really slept that great the whole time I was in Utah. Whatever. On the last day, I decided to treat myself and go off the beaten path a little bit so I figured that a little extra work was worth it. 

Whenever I go to Park City, there's typically one or two movies that I have to see for me. There are tons that I need to see for my job and I'm fully aware that I'm there to work first and foremost, even if that job involves watching movies all day. (poor guy!) Last year, the "me" movie was 2 Days In New York, and this year, it was Before Midnight. 

What's ironic is that I had the opportunity to meet Julie Delpy through my job last year and heard a journalist ask her if there were any plans to make a third film with Richard Linklater and Ethan Hawke. She kept quiet about it and said that it might happen . . . but all the while she knew that they had a script and were leaving to shoot it in a month!

Anyhow, I didn't have a ticket for the film. To rushline a film at Sundance, you're supposed to be there about 2 hours early. Fortunately for me, as it was the first screening of the day, I was only required to be there 1 hour in advance. As the film was scheduled to start at 8:30 AM, I was supremely grateful for this. At each venue, they post a sign with the average number of rushline people who got into screenings at the venue the year before. At the MARC, that number was 50, (not terribly encouraging) and thanks to a misleading bus driver, I ended up with #95 (again, not very encouraging) Fortunately for me, a kind woman who was somehow able to buy a ticket, flipped my number around by giving me her spot at #59. 

Boom!

Now to the film . . .  (no spoilers per se, but don't read on if you don't want to know the basic premise, which I think is a kind of spoiler in the world of this series.)

• Before Midnight: I have loved this series since I was in my late teens. Jesse and Celine feel like friends of mine, and that's not exaggeration on my part. The films are so so well-written and the performances are wonderfully authentic that you feel like you know these people. In this one, we find the two together for nine years following the events of Before Sunset. In many ways, Before Midnight is about what "happily ever after" is really like. It's a very different kind of story than the previous two. With those, the characters still have rose-colored glasses on with regard to each other. But here? Here, they've been together for years and years, and the gloves come off. If the first two were about the fight to get together, this one is about the fight to stay together. Not surprisingly, the writing's great and the performances are strong. That said, I do wish that I'd watched the other two again before watching this one, as it'd been a while, and I think that, to have the maximum effect, a 1-2-3 approach would work best. These films are growers, and while I don't think that Before Midnight is the best individual entry in the series, the impact that they have as a trio is undeniable.
  
  
  Look, there's a lot that I could say about the film, but I'm going to collect as much as I can and post it once the film's come out for people to see for themselves. I want to talk about individual details and plot-points, but there's no reason to put that up when only a few people around the world have seen the film. Stay tuned, ok?

While I was disappointed to have to come home before the end of the Festival, I'm really glad to have been a part of the experience at all. It's an amazing thing to be a part of a town filled with so much energy all focused in one direction. I said this last year, and I'll say it again. It restores your faith a little bit to see people lying on the ground in front of the screen instead of missing the movie and people who'd rather get in line before 8 AM than risk missing a movie. This is my tribe, and I'm proud to be part of it.

Over and out,

-Adam

Tales From Park City - I Drank His Milkshake

Apologies for the late post. I needed to hit the hay early on Sunday night, and was busy yesterday tying up loose ends and getting ready to fly back. Monday's column will be up later today/tonight.

-------

Sunday’s films at Slamdance:

• Animation Showcase: As a medium, animation allows the filmmaker to create content without any connection to the physical world. It’s the rare place where the artist can literally create anything that he/she wants, regardless of how crazy it might sound. I found a few gems in this program, but on the whole, there were a lot of abstract pieces. I tend to fall a bit more on the narrative side of things with regard to form. That’s a personal preference of mine, and not a reflection on any of the filmmakers who, to a person, are all very talented artists. Here are a few that I really liked.
  
  
  -An Elegy for Eden – I’m not entirely sure what the proper term is for the technique director Jason Gay McLagan used to create this one, but it’s lovely. It’s ironic too, because I thought that the film was a strange take on the Eden myth, but it’s apparently meant to represent the breakdown of personality in the digital age.
  -Gum – hilarity. This is probably the best in the punch if you’re going pound for pound. There’s really just not any fat.
  -Home – A sweetly raunchy (or is “accurate” a better term?) look at what makes a house a home.
  -I Am Tom Moody – probably my favorite in the bunch. Tom Moody is about to play his first concert, but has to have a quick conversation with someone who doesn’t want him to. I guess I’m a sucker for pieces about self-actualization, particularly when they feel true to life and avoid the corny factor.
  -Noodle Fish – beautifully animated in what appears to be a sandbox. A story about a little fish who decides that he would like to see the world outside the water. He also encounters some aquatic philosophers, which was terrific.
  -Tap to Retry – this made me laugh. A series of quick vignettes (though I think that vignettes is a poor term to use for a description) related to the emotional impermeability of the modern world.
  -Triangle – wonderfully inventive piece more than a little inspired by the “Pink Elephants on Parade” sequence in Dumbo.
  
  
• Between Us – anytime one of the Festival’s founders makes a film (and it’s actually programmed by the team!), they do what’s called a Founder’s Screening. You might recall last year’s Wild In The Streets? This time around, it’s Dan Mirvish. I was supposed to see another film, but after it sold out, I decided to watch Between Us instead of waiting in the rush line for something that wasn’t a sure thing. Plus, I didn’t want to sit on the floor, which people are wont to do at Slamdance if seats are no longer available. Mind you, I think it’s awesome when people do that. I just don’t want to do it myself. Also, Dan promised milkshakes to those who came to the screening. Honestly. I scored a vanilla shake that was pretty good too.  Props to editor Dean Gonzalez for going to the trouble to make them at all. Based on a play by Joe Hortua, Between Us is about the alternately ascending/descending relational trajectories of two different couples. One (Julia Stiles and Taye Diggs) seems like the better adjusted of the two at first, while the other (Melissa George and David Harbour) . . . not so much. Let’s just say that things get kinda out of hand at a reunion. Make that two reunions. The best thing about the film is the way that the two reunions (with two years between them) are intercut in such a way as to illuminate certain parallels and show just how much these people have changed over time. It’s a nice movie, but nothing to really write home about. The performances don’t really hit as hard as they might have been intended to, and I think that the writing could have stood a little more punch to make things a bit tougher. That said, I liked the film’s black sense of humor.
  
  
• Visitors (Die Besucher) – with a big tip of the cap to BigWords, this is the best film I’ve seen at Slamdance 2013. It’s a wonderfully mature look at family dynamics, the way they change over time, and the nature of child/parent interdependence in modern society. Jakob, in his late 50’s, goes to visit his three adult children in Berlin for the first time in years, but doesn’t tell his wife, Hanna. Let’s just say that they’re not on the best of terms, and the family has to deal with a lot of stuff that they’ve been sweeping under the rug. Part of what makes the film so interesting is the way that it explores the way that kids these days are having to rely financially on their parents much, much longer they used to, and the subsequent tension, resentment, confusion that can come as a result. There’s a particularly lovely scene in which one character makes one of the most heartfelt speeches I’ve heard in a film in a long time. I’d say more, but that would give away too much.  The performances are terrific, the writing is terrific, and I was really surprised to learn that Visitors is director/co-writer Constanze Knoche’s first feature film. This is one to look out for.

At the close of the night, I ended up at the Between Us party for a little while before heading back to the condo to try and catch some sleep before heading out early in the morning. Before Midnight was set to roll at 8:30 AM, and I needed to be there an hour early to get in the rushline. I’ll let you guess as to when this pillow hawk needed to get up to make that happen.

More later,

-Adam

P.S. And here’s Rand’s Dave Grohl story in his own words . . .

-------

Scene: VIP lounge pre Chef-Dance dinner/concert

Dave Grohl of Foo Fighters wonders behind the small bar to hand out beers.

Dave: Do you want a drink?

Me: I couldn't go back to my normal life on Orange County if I refused a drink from Dave Grohl... But you have to do a shot with us!

Dave: Only if it's whiskey.

Me: (trying not to look elated) Perfect!

Dave pours 3 shots. My boss, friend and I take a shot of Crown Royale. 

The end.