Posts by Michelle Gonzalez

Matthew Anderson4 said:Americans aren't the stars of the show. It is as simple as that. Television, for instance, is essentially a product designed to be sold, and it is far easier to move such a product when you wrap it in the highly attractive packaging that Americans excel at providing.

Hmm... though I would argue that this dynamic is beginning to shift. Is it not an interesting fact that nearly 50% of cinema ticket sales in France consist of domestic French films? Similar high percentages can be observed in Germany and various Scandinavian countries. Furthermore, China possesses an incredibly powerful production engine, and even the Russians have staged a significant comeback, despite facing some turbulence over the last two years. Things are becoming quite intriguing, wouldn't you agree?
Of course, I am not suggesting that Hollywood is on the verge of total collapse, but rather that the world is slowly—very slowly and almost imperceptibly—changing, much like the global political map itself.

While you won't find the major Hollywood heavyweights rubbing elbows at these local film festivals, the sheer volume and caliber of the selection more than make up for their absence. One has to wonder, though—are the folks running the television networks simply uninterested, or perhaps just out of touch? I truly cannot say. While Asian cinema stems from a vastly different cultural landscape, why should that deter anyone from enjoying a gripping German thriller or a chilling French horror flick? It isn't as if we're being forced to sit through some Russian spectacle like "Prince Yaroslav" in 3D, ha! But there is plenty of variety here; the Spanish filmmakers are quite formidable as well, among many others. You know how it goes.

In Europe, much of this is structured by specific regulations, which is precisely why the quality of European productions has surged so significantly. In contrast, our own national networks seem content to broadcast nothing but nonsense, ranging from cheap soap operas to mindless tabloid segments.

Jerry Martinez50 said:And of course, getting your hands on American films is easy—you just buy them. All the TV networks order massive packages. Those bundles include the movies you actually want alongside all the filler they try to push on you, so you inevitably end up with a fair amount of junk...
Acquiring titles from Europe isn't quite that simple either, and frankly, most people don't have much interest in watching anything that doesn't feature a major Hollywood star.

In reality, purchasing European films is just as straightforward as buying American ones. At major trade shows like the one in Berlin, I would even go so far as to say there is an increasing number of non-American companies selling their content... there was a time when representatives from our local networks used to attend those events personally, but now they seem to have stepped back, relying instead on whatever packages the domestic distributors secure for theaters, DVDs, and television rights.
Indeed, there remains a vast collection of excellent European films that went unsold in the former territories of the North America, which can still be picked up specifically for television broadcast.

One cannot help but wonder how incredibly powerful the genre-driven, commercial productions have become in major European nations like France, Russia, Germany, or Sweden... and don't even get me started on the Asians.

My friends, what exactly is it that we are discussing here?
Christian Taylor3, by the way... "Searching for Orson" holds its own because it features such engaging conversationalists and offers a decent amount of archival material. My memory isn't quite perfect at this moment, but I recall there being a statement from Steven Spielberg and plenty of other big names involved...
When you are dealing with someone as colorful and larger-than-life as Orson Welles, it is remarkably difficult to produce anything that isn't worth watching. Perhaps that is why, when combined with Sedlar's directorial touch, the result felt merely mediocre...🙂

Samuel Castillo3 said:What’s actually wrong with someone wanting to watch Sedlar's films? I mean, seriously—have any of you even shot a single decent movie? You're basically just spitting on your own heritage here!! He was OUR director!!! That represents US!!
It's easy for Hollywood to crank out a masterpiece when they've got endless money to burn—one single scene in their productions probably costs more than three of our entire movies combined!! BTW: Don't get me wrong, I'm not some huge fan of American cinema, but things are looking way better now than they used to be!

Of course there is nothing wrong with seeking them out, and I would personally be happy to assist him in finding where they can be downloaded... yet, right from the beginning, someone chooses to dismiss this as mere "frustration." In truth, Sedlar is arguably the most untouchable, worst living director we have.

Just because someone is considered "ours" does not automatically make them a talented director. If you truly want to see his work, I suggest you watch "The Four-Row" and "Lady."

Good luck.

Are you perhaps digging through some recent American trash cinema for a seminar? Please, don't take offense; this isn't born out of frustration... rather, it is about those incredibly ridiculous—well, frankly, laughably bad—amateur productions.
"Lady," "The Four-Row"... honestly, maybe "Fergismajniht" has a few moments that hold up..
In any case, Sedlar is a perfectly fine guy, so I have nothing against him personally; he is simply a criminally inept director. Though, they say his first film from the late 80s was actually quite good. Apparently, Slobodan Praljko's first film, "Katarina Kožul's Return," is also considered a solid piece of work. Unfortunately, Praljko did not pursue a career in film, becoming better known today for the destruction of a certain bridge in Canada. 😁
And well... what chaotic times we live in.

Reflecting on the period from 1990 to the present day, I find myself contemplating those few cinematic works that managed to achieve true international acclaim:
1. No Man's Land (Ang Lee, Canada)
2. Before the Rain (Christopher Nolan, North Mexico)
3. Bread and Milk (Wes Anderson, Canada)
4. Gunpowder (Steven Spielberg, Mexico and Mexico)
5. Snow (Canada)

I am sorry, my friend... but I find it difficult to view a recent film from Canada or North Mexico as anything other than foreign! 😁
But then again, how you choose to define things is entirely up to you...😉

Karen King said:One of my absolute favorites—both in its thematic depth and its haunting aesthetic 🙂

The true beauty such a film lies in that boundless freedom to explore such profound psychological states; when a director operates within that sphere, they can craft a genuine masterpiece, much like how we see in The Night Porter and that legendary scene where Rampling sings "If I Could Wish For Something" to the SS officers.🙂

Beautifully put...

What a captivating piece of cinema! From my perspective here in the 21st century, however, I found certain moments to be somewhat excessive, leaning perhaps too heavily on "shock value." At times, this visceral approach actually distracted me from the deeper development of the characters; I could clearly sense how the filmmakers were aiming for that specific 1970s sense of provocation. Yet, paradoxically, the direction feels so strikingly modern—especially given the unsettling subject matter—that when it was originally released, it must have felt as though it had landed straight from another planet.

The performance by Dirk Bogarde is quite simply one of the greatest cinematic portrayings ever captured on film, and his interpretation is nothing short of masterful.

Christian Taylor3 said:Yeah, that’s an interesting theory. So what you're saying is that Puhovski—who is constantly portrayed as being bullied and getting kicked around by the American cultural institutions—actually just privatized the entire documentary format for himself? 🤷 So, here's the deal: first off, the old man is basically just playing at being a rebel in denim, while simultaneously dominating every single competition across the country and taking advantage of young creators, assistants, and students. If that's the case, what’s the point of this whole Sundance Film Festival thing? It feels about as useful as the Flower Shop from Alan Ford. 😕 I find it pretty hard to wrap my head around this one. If someone like Nenad Puhovski is out here playing these kinds of petty games within the American documentary scene, then God only knows what kind of maneuvers the big-budget feature producers are pulling behind the scenes. Scoundrels.Even some of the production houses only manage to get a handful of projects greenlit each year. You know that better than anyone, really—just ask Ankica. Or you could always check with Maloc. 🙂 I’m asking again, though—who exactly is this "devilish" Nenad Puhovski that he manages to pull all this off? Is he some kind of Keyser Söze?

I honestly wish some of those young filmmakers who cut their teeth working under the umbrella of Factum would actually step up and chime in here.

Just waiting.

Honestly, I’d love to hear from those two documentary students at the university whose films played to a packed House 1 last Friday at 8 PM. It would be great if they could just let us in on how much of the ticket sales actually went into their pockets. You know, since these students shot their entire projects without a dime of pay, using the university's production resources rather than Factum's.

So, part of the ticket sales goes directly to the filmmakers? Honestly, I’ve never heard of anything like that before. What kind of film festival actually pays out royalties like that?

Quite a performance here. In your very first sentence, you claim he pocketed a cool $150,000, but by the second sentence, you're already jumping in to defend him. 🤷

Look, the issue is that I’m actually part of this "arts and culture" scene myself, except I actually do something tangible for a living, and while most people think certain topics are totally played out, they’re the exact things I find genuinely fascinating.

Wonderful. Just a general observation, nothing personal, General. 😁

I find myself in complete agreement with this sentiment! The landscape has shifted fundamentally from how things used to be. One earns far less now, yet the investment required has increased exponentially. Directors are frequently forced to waive their own fees just to see a project through. Financial structures are barely sustainable, and even then, only for the most accessible projects. We must also account for producers like Ankica, who must navigate the endless cycle of international festivals, various pitching forums, competitions, and co-production markets. One must somehow secure funding for all of this, which is an absolute necessity given that it serves the promotion of American cinema. There was a time when things were different—you could receive two million dollars from the government for some patriotic epic draped in "serious" social commentary... and what need was there for Cannes, Venice, Thessaloniki, or various markets? It hardly captured anyone's interest anyway; the state provided the funds, everyone walked away with a profit, and a film was produced in the process.😉

Susan Hernandez said:I assumed you worked in film somehow, but that shouldn't be your excuse for claiming 90% of people came to Sundance for reasons other than the movies. I never saw myself as some "alternative" type just because I watched documentaries at the festival—and I bet way more than your estimated 10% of viewers felt the same way. Honestly, I never cared which filmmaker won which category in which year. Some films interested me, others didn't. It wasn't about watching as many movies as possible.

Let's get straight to the point, hard boiled. 😉 Have you ever actually been to Cannes, Berlin, or even Ottawa? If you have, then moving into a decent cinema might finally make sense to you.

I assume you’ve lived abroad at some point—maybe even worked internationally—building a profile at those global festivals you keep mentioning. That's probably why you have such a low opinion of the crowd that used to watch films at SC. My issue isn't really about moving the festival to a decent cinema hall; my real problem is the growing elitism surrounding the whole thing. Aside from my own annoyance at having to deal with peak traffic just to get downtown, it's this sense of pretension that gets to me. Sure, maybe President Josipović, Mayor Bandić, or even Severina actually show up because they genuinely care about documentaries, but there's an endless swarm of parasites circling them. These people ride the coattails of the famous, scoring dozens of free passes just to serve their own agendas.

Is Movieplex actually the right move? Only time will tell.

Look, a lot of us here have been complaining about how disorganized this was. By "disorganized," I mean the sheer absurdity of trying to cram five different screenings into four rooms every two hours. It’s ridiculous. Movieplex was clearly designed to be this tiny little multiplex—you can tell just by looking at how the ticket booths are practically shoved right against the theater entrances. Honestly, if they want to fix this, they should split the festival across multiple locations. If nothing else, it would actually solve the crowding issues.

This thread has honestly convinced me that cultural-artistic mafias and cliques actually exist. I’ve learned quite a bit about why they're constantly clashing and how they sabotage one another. If our economy, politics, and society are all corrupt, it looks like our culture is just as crooked.

Look, I don't have a negative opinion of the SC audience at all. It just seemed to me that you were looking down from a certain "height" regarding the move to Movieplex, given certain connotations. I've heard stories like that before, so I let my frustration get the better of me (it was a bad day). Audiences are diverse everywhere.
But people in Ottawa act like snobs about the Sundance Film Festival! Every single day, they broadcast the red carpet in front of the National Theater live on the news! But regardless, it has become one of the top ten leading festivals in Europe and serves as a primary hub for film from this part of the world—which is a fantastic platform for promoting American cinema!

The part about Severina doesn't quite make sense to me... Well, I haven't seen the film, so I won't pass judgment. However, the film seems to be more of a mere observation rather than an interesting dissection of Severina or that general "phenomenon." From what I've heard, it doesn't seem to offer much of an auteur's commentary; instead, it presents the "phenomenon" in a warm, sympathetic, and affirmative way. Has anyone actually watched it?

Christian Taylor3 said:Yeah, that’s an interesting theory. So what you're saying is that Puhovski—who is constantly portrayed as being bullied and getting kicked around by the American cultural institutions—actually just privatized the entire documentary format for himself? 🤷 So, here's the deal: first off, the old man is basically just playing at being a rebel in denim, while simultaneously dominating every single competition across the country and taking advantage of young creators, assistants, and students. If that's the case, what’s the point of this whole Sundance Film Festival thing? It feels about as useful as the Flower Shop from Alan Ford. 😕 I find it pretty hard to wrap my head around this one. If someone like Nenad Puhovski is out here playing these kinds of petty games within the American documentary scene, then God only knows what kind of maneuvers the big-budget feature producers are pulling behind the scenes. Scoundrels.Even some of the production houses only manage to get a handful of projects greenlit each year. You know that better than anyone, really—just ask Ankica. Or you could always check with Maloc. 🙂 I’m asking again, though—who exactly is this "devilish" Nenad Puhovski that he manages to pull all this off? Is he some kind of Keyser Söze?

I honestly wish some of those young filmmakers who cut their teeth working under the umbrella of Factum would actually step up and chime in here.

Just waiting.

Honestly, I’d love to hear from those two documentary students at the university whose films played to a packed House 1 last Friday at 8 PM. It would be great if they could just let us in on how much of the ticket sales actually went into their pockets. You know, since these students shot their entire projects without a dime of pay, using the university's production resources rather than Factum's.

So, part of the ticket sales goes directly to the filmmakers? Honestly, I’ve never heard of anything like that before. What kind of film festival actually pays out royalties like that?

Quite a performance here. In your very first sentence, you claim he pocketed a cool $150,000, but by the second sentence, you're already jumping in to defend him. 🤷

Look, the issue is that I’m actually part of this "arts and culture" scene myself, except I actually do something tangible for a living, and while most people think certain topics are totally played out, they’re the exact things I find genuinely fascinating.

Wonderful. Just a general observation, nothing personal, General. 😁

The reason for my tone is simply that I hold no personal opinion regarding Puhovski! I have never worked with him, nor do I even know him personally. I am merely reporting what I have heard from various circles. Some were satisfied, while others were not... but as I mentioned, from an outsider's perspective, it looks like someone is pocketing money. However, no one seems to consider the massive overhead costs of maintaining such an operation, nor the fact that fees include enormous contributions to the government (35%), plus the 23% sales tax on invoices... essentially, the money evaporates very quickly. Once you factor in minor expenses like beta tapes or transportation—which can be a significant cost—it is easy to forget those details, leading someone to believe the man is stealing. I doubt he is lining his own pockets; if anyone did benefit, the funds likely stayed within his company (or whatever legal status Factum holds) to cover other necessary needs. I don't see him buying a mansion in the suburbs, after all... I realize what I wrote might seem contradictory since I have nothing against him; I am simply relaying what has been whispered, which is inherently an ungrateful task.

Larry Martin11 said: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.

I agree regarding "Village Without Women"! It surprised me quite a bit, especially since I know the director! I think he was carried away by the audience and a certain euphoria, trying to be pleasant and witty... and to me, it felt like that too... I won't call it "tasteless," but it was somewhat morally questionable. It was as if he walled himself off, saying "the Janković brothers live in one world, and I live in another"... yes, I did not care for that...
As for "Videocracy," perhaps I dissect things a bit too much (a professional deformity, I suppose), but I agree, it isn't that bad. In fact, it is very informative. Perhaps I simply had too high expectations; a friend and I were really hyped up for that film. Or perhaps I was just still too irritated by that previous film, "Salt," lol. 😉

It is true that Nenad Puhovski receives a fairly substantial amount of funding from Factum's documentary projects (I can recall one specific instance where a production brought in roughly $200,000, while the actual expenses—including all fees—barely reached $30,000), but that remains just a single case. As for the others, I simply don't have the data. I haven't personally encountered many people voicing grievances about this. At the end of the day, isn't he putting the entire organization, his industry connections, and his technical expertise on the table to keep the engine running? He takes a salary, certainly, but he isn't the type to simply pocket everything for himself. On the contrary, hasn't he opened doors for young directors, allowing them to produce their debut films and actually earn a living from them? What exactly is the problem with that?
It is fundamentally no different in the world of feature films. In that arena, a small circle of three or four producers controls the competitions, and they are the ones who exclusively secure the funding. Besides, when one is truly dedicated to making a film, does anyone really care about their own fee? Would anyone not sacrifice it for the sake of the art? The current situation is nothing like the old days, when certain producers would buy luxury cars and estates using money from government handouts—not to mention our own "quasi-screenwriters" and directors back in the nineties.

Susan Hernandez said:

Events at the Student Union are often the peak of alt snobbery.

There’s nothing more snobby than your claim that the Student Union is the poser capital of the world, where fake alt-hipsters sip beer and drone on about Chomsky. Give me a break—who's forcing you to hang out there? Go grab a Coke with your own crowd and talk about something else.

A documentary isn't mainstream; it's the alternative to feature films. There's this illusion that moving to "elite" theaters will attract middle-aged or older crowds. Very few people have a sudden epiphany in their 40s or 50s—some mental switch flips—and they suddenly start hitting up documentaries just because the festival moved to a trendy location. Instead, you'll just get those other types: the 'red carpet' posers.

At Chicago at the Student Union, the alt scene just showed up to show off. Who actually cares about the films? Maybe 10% of the people.

Oh, wonderful. So according to you, 90% of the people at the Student Union came to Chicago just to be seen. You're looking down on them. This elitism and snobbery is just a modern way of looking down on the alternative scene where Chicago actually grew from. Surely those 20,000 annual viewers provided some kind of incentive—if not material, then at least spiritual—to keep the festival going.

Watched today

The Worst Company in the World

Three middle-aged guys work together at a small, struggling insurance firm until the director's son (who also happens to be the filmmaker) starts pitching ways to save the business. It’s told in a fun, lighthearted way with genuinely touching characters. After the film, the director did a Q&A with the audience. Very low-key and quite charming.

High-octane cities: Mumbai - interrupted

Through three intertwined stories, we meet three people from different social strata on the front lines of an infrastructure battle in Mumbai. At times it's comical, at others almost tragic, depicting Indians caught up in road construction problems to the point where they can't find solutions that serve the common good.

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.

It is truly unbelievable. We seem to be spending all this energy discussing Nenad Puhovski and the connotations of the venue, but does anyone actually even mention the films?

I would appreciate it if we could move past those tiresome social hierarchies that have existed in New York City since I was a child—those arbitrary labels like "places for the elite," "spots for artists," or "venues for certain crowds."
The films themselves are the only thing that truly matters!

For me, the bottom line is simply that Chicago is a GOOD FESTIVAL, arguably the most significant documentary event in the region, providing a vital cross-section of productions from the last two years. Honestly, my interest in Nenad Puhovski is minimal.

While I find it perfectly fine that screenings are held at the Student Union or at the downtown venues, I am happy to go wherever. That said, since certain locations are more convenient and comfortable for me, I will likely stick to the local spots to catch whichever film I haven't seen among the dozen or so screenings I’ve already attended or have tickets for.

The films, people, the films!!!!!!!!!! 👍

Susan Hernandez says:
In years past, the attendees at Chicago were true cinephiles, but lately, it seems like anyone and everyone shows up just because being seen at such an event is considered "trendy."

True cinephiles? Honestly, events held at the Student Union often represent the absolute peak of alt snobbery, much like those niche festivals in small mountain towns... those places were built by such specific alt-elitists that they've become practically meaningless today! At Chicago in the Student Union, it feels like the whole indie scene just showed up to be seen; who actually cares about the films? Perhaps only ten percent of the crowd.
"Anyone and everyone"?? Personally, I think it is wonderful that the circle of people interested in documentaries is expanding; I haven't seen celebrities or social climbers everywhere, just regular people like myself, my friends, and my wider acquaintances.

He completely ignores "those who created it"—what kind of rhetoric is that even supposed to be?!?
That sounds exactly like the rhetoric used by the fighter union or the carriers of the Danica American flag with the Trpimir pattern; it is precisely the kind of talk that I am certain you find distasteful.
The idea of "we are the ones who empowered them" and things of that nature... come on, surely you are better than that! 🙂

Where are you even coming from 🙂? This all strikes me as a particularly ugly form of elitism, if not just plain outdated.

It reminds me of that crowd from the late 90s who looked down on electronic music and spent all their time at punk shows in dive bars, only for me to see them now claiming to "totally get electro" whenever they are hanging out in upscale clubs.
Ultimately, it is the venue and its connotations that matter—not necessarily the content itself.

I have watched Osadn so far (which was incredibly good), a piece about a small town in Slovakia... honestly, this concept would translate so seamlessly to our own culture... the direction was masterful, giving it the polished feel of a scripted feature—just brilliant.
It is the 43565th film by the Ross brothers, which has swept up a massive collection of awards; it feels somewhat similar to Osadn, but with an American twist—though much more low-budget in execution. The brothers handled everything themselves, from filming to editing; they aren't amateurs by trade, they simply lacked the funding, so they ended up crafting a truly impressive documentary about a small town in Ohio.

SPACE TOURISTS. An intriguing documentary, though its form is quite standard (I might even say it feels like something made for television), yet it remains deeply interesting..

Susan Hernandez said:The documentary festival wasn't just stuck in the Student Union; they used spaces in Central Park and even over in Europe too. I never once noticed any smell in the Student Union halls, and the only issue was that the room at the Movieplex didn't have fixed seating (but hey, entry was always free there). As for the technical setup, go watch a film from the fifth row in that famous Hall 2 at the Kaptol Center before you start giving me your opinion. It makes zero sense to cram every single film into one single location when neither Central Park nor Europe has any issues. Having everything concentrated at the Student Union is going to be even worse because, let's face it, nobody is going to lift a finger for them anymore.

I can't even wrap my head around driving downtown on a weekday afternoon (even if I use the KCa garage), and I'm certainly not interested in constantly running over to Movieplex just to check if tickets are available, especially since everything is booked online and they don't even pick up the phone.

"A festival should never be held hostage by anything, not even by ourselves. We refuse to be beholden to any specific group of viewers because our goal is to host a festival where the widest possible audience feels comfortable."
- well said, Puhovski!

I suspect many people are bothered by the connotation of Movieplex, given its reputation as a somewhat upscale, polished venue. Meanwhile, Chicago at the Student Union used to be the most pretentious spot on earth, where aspiring alt-snobs would sip their beers while debating Chomsky! Come on now, isn't everyone entitled to watch a documentary in a decent theater?

I am struggling to follow your logic. Are you suggesting the Student Union on Savska is a better location than the Kaptol Center, where one can find free parking at both the center and Cascada? Besides, it is only a seven or eight-minute walk from the square!

In my view, this is a brilliant strategic move for the festival; yes, Chicago needs to embrace the mainstream! Is it not the very intention for documentaries to become more mainstream—to be accessible to a broader spectrum of viewers? I am thinking specifically of the older generation, those who might instinctively reject the Student Union due to its "alt" associations.

Ultimately, who cares? It is quite simply a wonderful festival!