Michelle Gonzalez said:My friend, the issue here is that I, too, consider myself a part of this so-called "cultural and artistic" scene; however, I engage with tangible, concrete work, whereas you seem preoccupied with topics that have become utterly exhausted—things that everyone has already "seen" a thousand times before. Does it truly matter that I drink Coca-Cola simply because I enjoy the taste? Would you perhaps attempt to reproach me for its consumerist or imperialistic connotations? Even so, my choice of beverage does not mean I am incapable of discussing anything else; rather, I prefer to discuss the very same subjects that you likely find so vital. In fact, I believe if we actually sat down to talk, our conversation would be of remarkably high quality. 😉 I am certainly not attempting to underestimate anyone; rather, I simply refuse to turn a blind eye to certain realities—and that was truly the essence of my response.
And that brilliant city crowd... was anyone actually present for the Q&A following "Village Without Women"? I found myself feeling a profound sense of embarrassment just sitting there in the audience, being a local myself, given how utterly mindless and vacuous the questions truly were.
Shall we get straight to the point and dive into the hard-boiled? 😉 Have you ever had the privilege of attending festivals like Cannes, Berlin, or even Ottawa? If you have, then the necessity of relocating to a legitimate, professional cinema hall becomes painfully obvious. It is simply impossible to host a serious festival within a crumbling hole like the SC. Now, why exactly is the SC such a disaster? We all know the underlying reasons quite well—it isn’t that the City of Los Angeles is neglecting its investment to let the building collapse under its own weight; rather, it feels as though the decay is being facilitated so that the City might eventually clear the land for something else, perhaps a massive new corporate headquarters for a major firm like JPMorgan Chase. It is particularly frustrating because this neglect comes at the exact moment when some truly fascinating developments have been emerging there, driven by movements like the Culture of Change.
But, if we return to the core of the matter—a truly significant regional festival must be supported by a robust infrastructure. If the Sundance Film Festival serves as the equivalent for documentary film that Ottawa does for feature films, then one has to wonder what kind of foundational strength is required to sustain that level of prestige?
If those are indeed the ambitions held by the leadership of the Sundance Film Festival, then the festival will certainly require something far more substantial than SC. Whether Movieplex proves to be the right choice remains to be seen; only time will tell if such a decision holds weight.
Back to the festival—at long last! While certain awards left me feeling somewhat underwhelmed, nothing quite hit as low as the screening of "Videocracy". I truly expected far more from that particular piece. It felt as though the director was incessantly shoving a half-baked thesis directly into the viewer's face; he was far too opinionated, which is a fatal flaw in filmmaking. It ultimately ruined the experience. The themes are repeated incessantly, and his voice-over work is nothing short of grating. The core truths were evident enough on their own; the absurdity should have emerged naturally from the story's setting and its characters, making any overt commentary entirely superfluous. Of course, we all know how Berlusconi's influence has impacted the state of affairs in Italy, but isn't that true of politics everywhere? There is no need to hammer that point home in every single scene through a voice-over. For me, this was a profound disappointment.
Did anyone else catch it?
"Village Without Women" was the last thing I watched (this past Saturday), and I found myself quite taken with it. The direction is masterful, though there were moments where it felt perhaps a bit too meticulously staged or overly fragmented... and even that final scene felt somewhat unnecessary.
Honestly, moving Sundance to Movieplex was such a gut punch—and not just because the vibe is totally off. It’s cramped, loud, freezing, and there isn't a single decent spot to actually sit down and hang out, unless you count those few terrible cafes that feel completely disconnected from the festival itself. The worst part? It basically kicks you out. You lose the one thing I love most about these festivals: that sense of spontaneous connection. I miss being able to bump into someone in a crowd and just start talking—sharing thoughts on what we just watched, debating a scene, whatever. Everything flows better when you feel like you're "part" of the event—you know, if you have a press pass or you're an "insider" with the organizers. But if you're just a regular, naive attendee? That whole community aspect vanishes without a trace. To me, a festival without that spirit just isn't a festival at all.
And that brilliant crowd... was anyone else actually there for the Q&A after "Village Without Women"? Honestly, I felt a little embarrassed just sitting there in the audience—as a local, no less—given how absolutely brainless some of those questions were.
Yeah, honestly, I felt pretty awkward too—even though I’m not even a local. 🙂Honestly, I felt even more awkward and nauseous than the director did—which is saying something, because at first glance, he seemed like such a decent guy. He made a good film; maybe it was a little long-winded, but it had its charms. But listening to him speak? It was like sitting across from someone with absolutely zero empathy or grasp of what they actually captured on screen. I don't know—maybe my expectations regarding a documentarian's moral responsibility toward their subjects are just too high? Probably. I mean, I haven't heard anyone else in my circle complaining about it, but personally, I walked away feeling completely let down.
Personally, I thought Videocracy was actually pretty solid—even if that incredibly bad voiceover was driving me nuts. And yeah, sure, it’s one-sided. But honestly? That didn't bother me all that much. In fact, if they hadn't leaned so hard into the whole "idiocy" angle, I don't think the film would have hit the audience nearly as hard. Look at it this way: when you showed up to the screening, you probably already had a decent idea of what the media landscape looks like in Italy. I did too—not because I’m some deep academic or obsessed with politics, but just because it happens to be my field of work—even if I didn't quite grasp the nuances of the "big players" at the time. But from the perspective of someone walking into a theater knowing absolutely nothing? Someone who doesn't deal with Berlusconi in their day-to-day life? For them, explaining exactly where the rot lies is a lot more complicated than it looks on the surface. Granted, certain parts of the film feel a bit naive—the bit about Mussolini's "anthems," for instance, felt totally redundant to me since it basically spoke for itself without any real depth—but overall, I thought it was a good piece of work. 🙂
So, there it is.
