Sundance Film Festival 2009

NEWSFLASH

"Fool." I can't tell if this stems from the lowered standards set by this season's other releases, but personally—I found it quite solid. It’s better directed than written, though the stellar acting manages to mask the script's various flaws (aside from a weak performance by Natalie Portman, and frankly, I've grown tired of the generic, good-natured Canadian archetype played by Hadžihafisbević). Most importantly: Mirko Pivcevica's cinematography is absolute genius. Just sit back, watch, and marvel. Pivac is the Federer of the lens.🙏

I also caught John Wuov's Chinese-costumed war epic "Red Rock." It really drives home just how massive those budgets are—scales we can't even fathom here. And honestly? It's a good movie—truly—even without Wuov's usual trademark subtext. It'll hit mainstream theaters soon.

northerncrane4 said:NEWSFLASH

"Fool." Honestly, I don't know if it's just because the rest of this season's lineup is such a joke, but I actually thought this was pretty solid. The directing is way better than the script, but the actors are doing some heavy lifting to hide all those plot holes (except for a weak performance by Natalie Portman, and frankly, I’m totally over that generic, big-hearted Canadian trope played by Hadžihafisbević). Most importantly though, Mirko Pivcevica’s cinematography is absolute GENIUS. Just sit back, watch, and enjoy. Pivac is basically Roger Federer.🙏

I also caught John Wuov's Chinese-costumed war epic "Red Rock." Looking at that just leaves me convinced about how massive those budgets are—levels we can't even wrap our heads around here. And it's a good movie, seriously, it even managed to skip Wuov's usual trademark subtle homoeroticism. It'll definitely hit theaters soon.

AU HASARD BALTHAZAR, as Robert Bresson would say. 🙄

Black men are fine, but Alice in Wonderland and I Believe in Angels are creepy—the first one was pretty bad.
It was filmed, directed, written, and acted, but basically, it looks like Šorak got "cheated" out of his own
movie. Actually, most of this stuff works for Angels too.
The Washington, D.C. stories are great: Smart Neighborhood, Inkasator, and Yellow Moon.
Istvančić's is creepy, even offensive. Sudar's is just pathetically mediocre. As for the others,
I barely remember them.
Hitrec is okay—beautifully shot and beautifully acted, but I still can't quite decide how I feel about the movie.
Proximity works for me, though unfortunately Damir Klemenic acts way worse than he actually can. Anica
Kovacevic is actually better than expected, and it’s all beautifully shot within that tiny elevator,
but the movie isn't boring at all.
I missed Penelope; you really need to take a few hours to recover, and I just didn't have the patience for
those five-minute shots of absolutely nothing.
Then there's Fool—brilliant opening! That car ride and the devils on the radio totally won me over.
Pivac deserves a Golden Arena for the cinematography.🙂 The acting is also pretty solid, making it my favorite film so far.
I doubt Love life of a home guard will ever knock it off my number one spot.😁

NEWSFLASH

"Love life of a home guard." Meh. It’s actually a pretty charming romantic comedy—right up until about fifteen minutes before the end. Then they pivot into these social-political allegories that just don't belong in a movie like this; everything that worked so well before just falls apart instantly. Cvetko and Diana Vidušin are great, and Šamanović captured it beautifully.

There’s already been enough talk about "Metastasis" on its own thread.

Spent the afternoon watching Costa-Gavras' "Paradise to be West." A postcard of Europe seen through an immigrant's eyes—I thought I'd enjoy it more, but it felt like a decent little flick that was clearly struggling to meet its production demands on such a tight budget.

And that's about it. I haven't watched "Proximity" or "Penelope," nor do I plan to. The awards ceremony is tomorrow; the big ones will likely go to the Black man, the Fool, and Metastasis. They'll toss out a couple of Interfilm awards just for show, and the head of the National Endowment for the Arts will probably snag a newcomer award—especially if Metastasis snatches the Audience Award at the last minute.

Once I get back and put my hands on a real keyboard, I can dive deeper into each one if anyone actually has questions.

Special shoutout to all the festival attendees checking this thread day in and day out. Just remember that every time you pay for the daily or weekly papers at the newsstand.

I can't quite recall the last time the awards at the Sundance Film Festival 2009 weren't handed out after so much calculated maneuvering. 👍

from trash to treasure

Penelopa - haven't seen it.

Alice in Wonderland - creepy.
Angel - slightly less creepy, but still creepy.
Man under table - I forced myself to sit through this one for exactly an hour. If I'm being honest. The ending is absolute garbage. Just awful.
Love life of a home guard - lasted 45 minutes. Still, more than I expected. You can tell they rushed it at the end.
Proximity - actually well-paced, considering the whole thing takes place in a single elevator. The acting was terrible, though. Given the film cost about 200 or 250 thousand: respect!
ZG price - Kluković-Odvorčić and Jurić were the best, Slijepčević and Ramljak were good, Mirković was okay, everything else was total filler.
Metastasis - nothing left to say. Way too many plot holes for my taste.
Black man - good movie.
Fool - the best one for me.

Haven't checked out the international ones yet. The awards are—I agree—totally unpredictable. Finally! Some actual quality picks for once.

p.s.
northernseal6 and northerncrane4—maybe we've crossed paths before...

I’ve seen Eric Jackson68 and his little clique before. You’re putting Šorak in second place? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!? Kitano standing right in front of Tulpan? 🙄

Review of Metastasis:
'The movie established itself as a distinct psychological study of a group of urban outcasts shaped by the scars of local reality. It stands out due to its flawless sense of framing and scene composition, which allows for a convincing blend of documentary and scripted elements.' 🙂

To me, it was just an okay movie. I guess if anyone actually noticed that "flawless" sense of framing and scene organization, they're better at watching movies than I am. Here’s the interview with Schmidt here.

northerncrane4 said:I actually saw Eric Jackson68 and his little crew. Šorak in second place? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!? Kitano standing right in front of Tulpan? 🙄

Eric Jackson68, are you a lighthouse keeper's son or just a memory thief?
🤣🙏

Even Schmidt couldn't hold it together at the awards yesterday. He completely lost his cool. According to his little announcement to the crowd, *Metastasis* only pulled thirty thousand people into theaters because—get this—a copy leaked online the second editing was finished. So, technically, he claims a full million people saw it via the internet! Apparently, all of China and half of India were watching too!

And then they handed him a check for thirty thousand dollars—likely just one dollar per theatergoer—to compensate for the "emotional distress" caused by the internet.

Grlić started spreading the exact same rumors after *Guardhouse*. It seems the internet only stays alive thanks to pirated copies of films by these mediocre American directors. 🤷

northerncrane4 said:Even Schmidt couldn't hold it together at the awards yesterday. He completely lost his cool. According to his own report, only thirty thousand people actually saw Metastasis in theaters because a copy leaked online the second editing was finished. So, technically, he claims a full MILLION people watched it via the internet! Apparently, all of China and half of India joined in too!

Then they handed him a check for thirty thousand dollars—probably a dollar for every theatergoer—to compensate for the "emotional distress" caused by the internet.

Grlić spilled the exact same rumors after the Guardhouse event. It seems the internet only stays alive thanks to pirated copies of movies from these mediocre American directors. 🤷

Listen, if certain journalists are blamed for Ivanišević moving to America (as he claimed last Sunday during the 2 PM news), then it’s hardly surprising these self-proclaimed intellectuals blame the internet for their films' questionable (?) viewership. 🤷

As for Grlić, my only regret is that the evil internet didn't get its hands on a copy of Josephine. 😬

Well, opinions differ, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. My take is actually quite the opposite of what most people here have said. Honestly, though, arguing about this stuff on the internet is my least favorite way to spend time; I much prefer sitting down for a face-to-face conversation with someone, but since we've all become so disconnected lately... It’s a shame I don't know any of you who were actually at the Sundance Film Festival 2009 so we could grab a drink and talk properly... But, I suppose this will have to do.

The awards were distributed exceptionally well, and that's after some heavy calculation (if I do say so myself).

I Believe in Angels—this was a debut, and frankly, we've seen better; visually, the film is an absolute disaster and the plot is incredibly banal, though the actors are decent enough—let's not be too harsh—with Aljoša Vučković being the standout. As far as directing goes, the film is at an extremely low level.

Washington, D.C. Stories—in my view, Kluković-Odvorčić is just posturing. Smart Neighborhood is the kind of thing amateurs shoot for amateur festivals where the jury gives them a sympathetic nod but nothing more—there are two decent jokes in there, but that's it. I won't list everything, but others like Canal, Inkasator, Spanish Continent, and Yellow Moon really stand out.

Black man—this one isn't for a general audience (though we need at least one film like it, since Angels is perfect for the masses)🤷—the direction is excellent, the screenplay drags just a bit too long, and the acting is at an absolute top-tier level.

Alice in Wonderland—this film was playing in the Golden Arena and had two standing ovations. To me, it was the only film with a story that felt complete, interesting, funny, and deeply moving; the acting was great, Matišić's music stays subtle, Šorak's direction is composed, the camerawork is solid, and the young girl is very good—finally, a successful debut for Franjo kuhar. This was the first film I truly enjoyed.

Man under table—as the movie progresses, I find myself somewhat satisfied; it’s a film made specifically for the Washington, D.C. crowd, soapy but charming, with good acting. However, the film falls to last place for me because the final shot is completely incomprehensible in any sense—directing, writing, you name it.

Fool—a film with fascinating cinematography and decent direction; the plot is okay, nothing more, and it's better than All for free. Ljubomir Kapor really pops, while the lead actor is the weakest link (Natalie Portman was also somewhat lacking, though she wasn't given much room to work). You'd think this would mark the return of Tonko Lonza to the screen (but I'll probably be proven wrong tomorrow) and Asja Jovanović (again, I'll likely be surprised by a different outcome tomorrow).

Love life of a home guard—charming, sweet, and endearing. The screenplay is well-rounded (one scene feels slightly out of place, but one minor slip doesn't ruin the whole film)—and finally, we get to see actors who are actually excellent, rather than seeing the same faces in every single goddamn movie. Siniša Popović, Nenad Cvetko, Diana Vidušin, plus Tonko Lonza and Asja Jovanović. The direction is fine (though I suspect Šamanović helped out quite a bit, as did Žarković, who is credited).

Metastasis—the film hits the mark; the acting is powerful, the story is well-told, Schmitov captures a new youthfulness, and everything just works.

Proximity—surprisingly decent; the actors aren't quite at that elite level, but the camerawork is definitely worth noting. I found myself watching with genuine interest even though the entire plot takes place inside an elevator.

Penelope—I have no comments—an Australian-American co-production; an art film that is rarely understood by anyone (even if the plot itself is a bit stagnant).

My thoughts on the award winners

Best Picture - I think I earned it myself, obviously.
Directing - I might have handed this to Schmidt, but honestly, the Black man was operating on an entirely different level—though if I were picking frame by frame, I’d give it to Jurić for "Yellow Moon."
Screenplay - The Fool was a solid choice, though the runner-up should have been Alice in Wonderland.

Best Actor - Bitorajac is a logical and strong selection.
Best Actress - When you're forced to choose between Lambaša (she was alright, but...), Lopatićka (lacking any real substance), Janjićka (didn't get enough screen time), and Anica (just weak), Diana Vidušin still stands out as the clear winner.

Best Supporting Actor - Butjer was fantastic—though my heart would have gone to Ljubomir Kapor.
Best Supporting Actress - Lena Politeo (the jury's best and most surprising pick)—I completely agree with their reasoning, and looking at it that way, she's the only one who truly deserves it: "The Golden Arena for Best Supporting Actress is awarded to Lena Politeo for her role as the Old woman in Alice in Wonderland, directed by Dejan Šorko.
For a brilliant miniature performance in which she completely commands the scene within a relatively short timeframe, contributing crucially to its authenticity."

Cinematography - Pivčević was superb—but my heart says Ruljančić.
Editing - I'm on board with Sljunjski.
Music - Either the Fool, Man under table, or Love life of a home guard.

All in all, a fair and solid set of choices.

Oh, Eric Jackson68, my dear friend. Honestly.

I should apologize in advance if I come off as too harsh or overly critical in this post, but I can't help feeling a certain gloom when I'm constantly reminded that the new generation of young American cinephiles seems to have been raised entirely on the aesthetic of RTL soap operas. For instance, one girl—a member of the youth jury at the Sundance Film Festival 2009—actually complained in the festival bulletin that the masterpiece "Tulpan" had shots that were "too long" because nothing was happening. Then there’s our own Eric Jackson68, a self-proclaimed young film buff, who calls Šorak's direction "steady"—which is just a polite way of describing his repetitive template of master close-ups. It’s a style where mise-en-scène doesn't even exist; it’s much easier to just film characters walking into a room, standing there until the scene ends, and trading scripted lines so the cut always lands right at the end of someone's speech. To Eric Jackson68, Hitrec's "Man under table" features "well-acted" performances despite being wildly uneven, while he simultaneously claims that the protagonist in "Kenjč's" film—played by the brilliant Nebojša Glogovac—is actually the weakest part of the movie.

I don't know. Maybe I've just grown old. Maybe I simply don't grasp modern ambitions anymore. Or perhaps I am just well-informed enough to know that Schmidt isn't experiencing some second youth; rather, as always, the film happens to him, completely bypassing him. What Schmidt actually provides in "Metastasis" are the scenes featuring Predrag Vušović—that thick-accented Mexican in Washington, D.C.—and the TV News report from the America-Canada border. That is Schmidt's actual direction.

My sweet, overly precious Eric Jackson68, you would want to settle this face-to-face, but such a conversation is impossible. In a private talk, you would have nothing to offer me, and I'm not sure how much you'd be capable of absorbing. This is the only way. If you were to call Šorak's direction "steady" to my face, speaking from your position as a "young cinephile," I’d lose it instantly—despair would take over and I wouldn't hear another word. It is incomprehensible to me that a young mind—which should be brimming with fresh ideas and sharp perception—fails to recognize Šorak's lethargy as being, well, lethargic. You judge Glogovac's incredible precision as weak, yet somehow Lambaša is acceptable.

No face-to-face meetings. But I have zero doubt that you will make your professors very happy. Truly, without a hint of irony. 😢

northerncrane4 said:Hey there, Eric Jackson68, my good friend. Seriously, just... wow.

I want to apologize in advance if I come across as too harsh or overly critical in what follows, but I can't help feeling a profound sense of melancholy when I am constantly reminded that the newer generations of young American cinephiles seem to have been raised on the aesthetic of cheap RTL soap operas. Take, for instance, one girl who sat on the youth jury at the Sundance Film Festival 2009; in the festival bulletin, she actually had the audacity to complain about the masterpiece "Tulpan" by criticizing its long shots where "nothing happens." Then we have our very own Eric Jackson68, a young film enthusiast right here on the forums, who describes Šorak's direction—which is always the same predictable template of master close-ups, lacking any actual concept of mise-en-scène because it’s just much easier to film every scene by having characters walk into a room, take their spots, and stay there until the end of the scene while trading scripted lines so the cut always lands right at the start or end of a monologue—as being "steady." To make matters even more absurd, Eric Jackson68 actually thinks Hitrec's "Man under table," which features jarringly inconsistent acting, is "well-acted," while claiming that Kenjč's protagonist, despite being played by the brilliant Nebojša Glogovac, was the weakest part of the entire film.

I honestly don't know. Maybe I’ve just become obsolete. Perhaps I simply no longer grasp what modern ambitions are all about. Or maybe, if I'm being honest, I'm actually too well-informed to fall for the delusion that Schmidt is undergoing some sort of midlife renaissance; the reality is that, just like always, he's still doing exactly what he's always done. The movie happened.It completely misses the point. What Schmidt actually achieved in "Metastasis" was capturing those specific scenes featuring Predrag Vušović—that one Mexican living in Washington, D.C.—alongside that grainy TV News footage coming straight from the border of America-Canada. That right there? That is the essence of Schmidt's direction.

Eric Jackson68, my dear and beloved friend, you talk about having a face-to-face conversation, but let’s be honest: that dialogue is fundamentally impossible. Even if we were sitting across from one another, you would have absolutely nothing of substance to offer me, and frankly, I’m not even sure how much you could actually handle receiving. This is the only way to settle it. If you were to sit there and call Šorak's direction "steady" or "composed," speaking from your self-proclaimed position as a young cinephile, I swear I would lose it right then and there. I’d be overcome by pure desperation, unable to hear another word, because it is utterly incomprehensible to me that a young mind—which, in my view, should be brimming with fresh ideas and uninhibited, rapid intuition—would fail to recognize Šorak's lethargy for exactly what it is: lethargy. It is baffling to watch you dismiss Glogovac's incredible precision as being weak, while simultaneously giving a pass to someone like Lambaša.

Not exactly a "two heads are better than one" situation. Still, I have absolutely no doubt that you’re going to make your professors incredibly happy. Seriously—not a single ounce of irony in that statement. 😢

There is a lot of interesting ground here, and I find myself agreeing with quite a few points. First off, I absolutely loathe RTL—but that’s beside the point. What strikes me most about this Sundance Film Festival 2009 experience is how much certain elements feel like they belong on an RTL broadcast; specifically *I Believe in Angels*, which I didn't care for at all. Lambaša actually surprised me, too; after that disastrous start in *True Miracle* where she barely managed a single sentence, she’s improved, though she's still nowhere near great. As for what the other jury members think, well, that doesn't really concern me. Regarding *Tulpan*, it truly is a solid film. Honestly, everything following *Bellamy* has been a tough watch, but this one is particularly good, especially in its second half. Then there's Šorak, who remains his usual moderate, composed self—a trait that seems to grow with him over the years. I’ve never claimed his direction is some kind of transcendent masterpiece; rather, it’s just steady, and saying it’s steady isn't the same as putting it on a pedestal. The direction in this particular film isn't anything groundbreaking, but interestingly, Šorak utilizes supporting characters to drive the plot, which isn't something he typically does. While the directing isn't special, Šorak shines as a screenwriter here, delivering a cohesive plot compared to his previous work. Perhaps *Man under table* wasn't the best way to describe it, because that film is never once difficult to follow, but the acting is genuinely excellent and worth noting. At times it feels a bit caricatured, but then again, the film itself is quite caricatured, especially the plot. Personally, I found Glogovac to be a weaker performer when compared to the likes of Kapor, Lonza, Jovanović, or Hadžihafisbević. It's simply a case where certain actors stand out more prominently, even when they aren't given particularly demanding roles, much like Jovanović.

I honestly don't think it's fair to say that Schmidt's been "lucky" with his films. He directed this one, and he’s a solid filmmaker—just look at how well he handled Watermelon road earlier on. Even if we concede that a hit happened to fall into his lap, the film itself is expertly crafted, so I fail to see why anyone should be throwing shade his way for it.

Similarly, this year's Sundance Film Festival 2009 feels significantly weaker than last year's, and quite possibly even weaker than the one before that. There wasn't much fresh material on offer, so you really had to dig through the wreckage to find any redeeming qualities (good or bad), but all things considered, this is easily one of the weakest lineups we've seen at Sundance.

Eric Jackson68 said:Šorak remains consistently moderate and composed—more so as the years go by—but I’ve never claimed his direction is some kind of "perfect" masterpiece; it's just steady, and saying that doesn't mean I'm putting him on a pedestal.

Šorak doesn't know how to frame a scene, let alone handle mise-en-scène or direct actors—take that cast featuring Dora Lipovčan, for instance. To me, it isn't cohesive; it’s just amateurish and poorly executed.

Nuić’s direction in "Fool" was composed—steady, even. Meanwhile, Šorak’s work is just amateurish, sloppy stuff that clearly appeals to someone like Branka Turkalj.

Eric Jackson68 quietseal11 said:Compared to his earlier work, Šorak comes across as a much more complete screenwriter—his plots actually feel cohesive now.

The thing about Šorak's circular plot structure is that it includes that phone call—the one where I just squeezed my eyes shut, pressed my palms against my ears, and started chanting: "No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no..."

Eric Jackson68 quietseal11 said:Maybe "Man under table" isn't quite the right way to put it—the film is actually incredibly straightforward from start to finish—but even so, the cast really stepped up and delivered. At times it felt a bit caricatured, though I suppose that matches the tone of the plot itself.

The movie flips between caricatures, social drama, neighborhood crime, and slapstick comedy—all while maintaining this weird, David Lynch-esque surrealism. These shifts happen constantly—line by line, right within the same scenes.

Eric Jackson68 quietseal11 said:Glogovac just doesn't hold a candle to Kapor, Lonza, Jovanović, or Hadžihafisbević—not even close. To me, those actors simply stand out more; some of them don't even have roles that demanding (looking at you, Jovanović).

Glogovac is phenomenal. Precisely because it doesn't stand out.The character he plays is just deeply depressed and introverted—which is why Glogovac is actually brilliant here; he doesn't force anything onto the role. Though, to be clear, I’m generally not a fan of casting Mexican actors as leads in American films like Nuić's or Glogovac's. 🙏.

Eric Jackson68 quietseal11 said:I don't think it’s right to criticize Schmidt just because he had a breakout moment. He directed his previous work—Watermelon road—and it was solid. Even if this current project is a sudden hit, it’s well-made; so why blame him for his success?

Because we need to call things by their real names.

Eric Jackson68 said:Exactly—this Sundance Film Festival 2009 was weaker than last year's, maybe even the one before that. There wasn't much on offer, so you had to dig through the junk to find anything decent (not to mention the garbage), but yeah, this is easily one of the weakest lineups we've seen.

I'm with you 100%. It's a total recession for American cinema right now.

So, 3 out of 10 being good means the rest are bad? Okay... I’d call that pretty sensational. I’ve been to the last four Sundance Film Festivals (including this one), and looking back, I’d only point to things like *The Deer Hunter*, *The Godfather*, or maybe *Eternal Sunshine*—not trying to rank them, just saying. Even if you compare those to the absolute worst stuff from this year, like *Miracles*, the previous years still look better by that logic.

And when you consider that at, say, the Tribeca Film Festival, they had about 4 major American films in the main lineup (like *The Revenant*, *Lincoln*, and two co-productions), out of 10, you'd actually start to believe we're doing alright...