Best movies from Sundance?

Jose Miller17 said:...the theme? ...I don't even know how I'd label it... it changed every single year... last year was all about the girls... the year before that was animated... that was always the best part... so there wasn't one this year?

Oh, please—of course there was. What were those little shorts then? The ones used to frame Napa Valley with that high-society elegance? Those wild, witty short films delivered in true Zelig fashion?

So, about that opening sequence... It didn't really follow a set format. Instead, they’d roll a different short intro every night showcasing various "connections" between Napa Valley and Vienna. They were styled like old-school newsreels—running about three to four minutes—and they always seemed to get a great reaction from the crowd. It was a nice touch, though we had to scramble a bit to get the English translations ready in time, which definitely kept us on our toes.

And honestly, Pavicic really did act as the curator. The films were mostly pretty dark.

ruggedmarlin15

northerncrane4 said:Really? And what were those movies that tried to frame Napa Valley within some high-society New York elegance? Those little indie shorts that thought they were being brilliantly subversive?

No clue... I wasn't there, which is why I'm asking 😕 ...clearly, I didn't miss anything life-changing 😁

Man, that story about how the Wiener Schnitzel actually came to be was honestly pretty great. 😁

stormywolf39 said:That bit about how the Wiener Schnitzel was invented—it actually hit the mark.😁

The psychoanalysis one? I nearly lost it. Thankfully—having sensed where things were headed—I’d already gone to the bathroom.

I’ve got some major gripes regarding this year’s film festival. First off, they set the screen up way too low at the Barbacan, so if you weren't sitting dead center, the subtitles were basically unreadable. I actually ended up dozing off during that Brazilian film by the Almost Brothers because of it. Next time we hit the Barbacan, we rushed to grab seats right in front of the screen, but then things went sideways. In that one movie from the North America, the actors were speaking Italian, yet the subtitles were in a local dialect using Cyrillic script. The organizer started apologizing and getting all emotional, so they finally swapped in English subtitles. I also caught the start of another flick—one about a son and his schizophrenic mother. It was pure "trauma porn," that whole vibe of "I suffered as a kid, so now I'll make you suffer." After fifteen minutes of watching nothing but misery, electroshock therapy, and depression, I decided my mental health couldn't take it and just walked out. Long story short, the Barbacan was a bust.
Also, if they're going to schedule two movies at the exact same time, the programming should probably be balanced. Having two depressing films back-to-back isn't exactly a great experience. More to come later...

soks said:First off, they hung the screen at the Barbican way too low. I couldn't see the subtitles properly from the middle, so I ended up dozing through that Brazilian Brotherhood movie.

Noted, though I managed to follow the subtitles behind the crowd without much trouble... then again, I'm a bit taller than average, so maybe that helped...
By the way, the subtitles at Bauer were almost impossible to read because they were positioned so low.

In that North American film, the actors were speaking Italian, but the subtitles were in Mexican using Cyrillic. Afterward, the organizer was apologizing and crying and all that, so they just threw on some English subtitles.

They didn't just "throw on" English subtitles; they had to switch to a DVD because the wrong copy arrived in Napa Valley (it had Mexican subtitles instead of American ones).

After sitting through fifteen minutes of that nightmare—just pure shock and depression—I decided my life was better off without it and just walked out.

Sorry, but you can't really blame the festival for this. You just didn't like the movie, right?

Besides, I think if they're showing two films at once, they should pick them so that both aren't incredibly depressing.

Films aren't scheduled by genre.

ruggedmarlin15

ruggedmarlin15 said:Movies aren't organized by genre.

Is there actually such a thing as a "depressing movie" genre?

No, but I see that, unfortunately, there isn't even a "drawing board plug-in" available so I could just sketch it out for those who are having a hard time grasping a simple sentence.

ruggedmarlin15

ruggedmarlin15 said:No—but I see there isn't even a "drawing board plug-in" available for me to sketch things out for those struggling to grasp a simple sentence.

Fine. If the "depressing movie" genre doesn't exist, then isn't it possible that both films screening at the same time aren't depressing? That was the question from a festival attendee—clearly unhappy with the screening schedule. Since you're acting as the festival spokesperson here, why don't you offer a meaningful response? Because the question itself isn't stupid.

northerncrane4 said:Alright, so if "depressing movies" isn't actually a genre, is it possible that both films playing at the same time aren't actually depressing?

How so? Most movies this year have been pretty heavy (I can't think of a single comedy). So what's the issue? And even if they weren't, what kind of logic is that? "Give me one depressing movie followed by a lighthearted comedy"? Honestly, I don't care if a movie is depressing or not—I just care if it's good. The organizers are doing their best with the scheduling.

A festival attendee asked this, clearly unhappy with how the screenings were scheduled.

She’s just unhappy with a specific movie and wants to blame the whole schedule for it. I'm not buying it. Besides, she didn't even mention which films she was talking about. Like... what, should I just guess?

Since you're acting like the festival spokesperson,

No, it's just that these posts from entitled kids are getting a bit annoying. PewDiePie, it's not everything being exactly how I want it, "mommy please"... It's exhausting.

offer a meaningful response. Because the question itself isn't stupid.

Not really...

ruggedmarlin15

ruggedmarlin15 said:How so? Most of the films this year were "depressive"—I can't recall a single comedy. So what? And even if they weren't, what kind of nonsense is that? "Give me one depressing film and then one lighthearted comedy"? I don't care whether a movie is depressing or not—what matters is whether it's actually good. The organizers are doing their best to schedule the lineup.

See, the lady is interested. She’s just a festival attendee—one who wasn't exactly promised a theme titled "THE DESPAIR OF EXISTENCE"—so she might feel a bit cheated.

ruggedmarlin15 said:She’s unhappy with the movie and wants to blame the screening schedule—I'm not buying it. Besides, she didn't even mention which films she was talking about. So... what, should I just guess?

No. You just don't answer—if you have nothing to say. Besides, the question wasn't even directed at you.

ruggedmarlin15 said:No, I just find these posts from spoiled brats a bit grating. Look, PewDiePie—it’s not like everything is exactly how I’d want it—but honestly? It’s all just "mommy, mommy, mommy"... Ugh.

That’s just how it works in a consumerist society—the customer is always right. Get used to it.

northerncrane4 said:You see, she’s interested. She’s just a visitor at the festival, and since the event didn't come with a pre-set theme like "THE DESPAIR OF LIVING," she might feel a little misled.

It’s just not true. The festival didn't actually set any specific themes, so trying to dismiss everything based on "too many depressing movies" doesn't really hold water as an argument.

No. You just don't answer. If you don't have anything to say, then don't. Besides, I wasn't even asking you directly anyway.

Are you her lawyer or something? By the way, I’m actually a huge fan of those volley-based pause estimates. No, really.

That’s just how it works in a consumer-driven society—the customer is always right. You might as well get used to it.

The festival just isn't a profitable venture. Because of that, we can't really count on a steady stream of customers to bail us out. We just have to get used to that reality.

ruggedmarlin15

ruggedmarlin15 said:That’s baseless. The festival isn't tied to any specific theme—so dismissing it because of "depressing movies" doesn't hold water.

Wrong. There is no official theme assigned to the festival. That much is obvious from the programming. Which was what gospodican was complaining about—an argument she seemingly has no right to make, regardless of the fact that she bought a ticket.

ruggedmarlin15 said:What, are you her lawyer or something?

Hardly. I'm just trying to look at the facts.

ruggedmarlin15 said:By the way, those random assumptions from volleyball are great. Not.

Funny—you also seem to have a habit of commenting without actually specifying what you're responding to.

ruggedmarlin15 said:The festival isn't a profit-driven event. So that whole "customer base" logic falls apart.

So, they don't charge for admission?

ruggedmarlin15 said:The festival just isn't designed to be a money-maker. So, if you're looking for customer perks, you're out of luck. You just have to deal with it.

ruggedmarlin15

Then why on earth did they charge me full price for every single ticket at the box office?!?!?!😲

northerncrane4 said:That's not right. The festival doesn't have one official theme. The programming makes its direction pretty obvious.

Actually, I disagree. This year, the organizers handed the selection reins over to John Pavicic. He picked most of the films. Whether Pavicic was the right choice is definitely up for debate. But this kind of nonsense—complaining like "boohoo, the movie was too depressing, the whole festival sucks"—is just ridiculous. Honestly, maybe people should do a little homework on the movies they plan to see. Did she expect some breezy summer teen flick? It wasn't some surprise screening; you can easily find info on these films online.

What was her actual complaint? It doesn't seem like she has much ground to stand on, even if she did pay for a ticket.

She’s allowed to complain, but there needs to be a logical argument behind it.

See, you also tend to comment without actually specifying what your point is addressing.

I'm not just commenting. I'm responding to nonsense.

Don't they charge for tickets?

They do, but that's not how the festival stays afloat.

ruggedmarlin15

Maria Peterson said:Then why on earth did they charge me for all the tickets at the register?!?!?!😲

Because you agreed to those terms. Just because the money came in doesn't mean it actually turned a profit for the festival.

ruggedmarlin15

kaeovo said:Wrong. This year, the organizers handed the selection reins over to J. Pavicic. He picked most of these films. Whether J. Pavicic was the right choice—that’s debatable. But this kind of nonsense like "boohoo, the movie was too depressing, the festival sucks"—is just plain idiotic.

What an apologist! If—let's say—90% of the festival lineup consists of depressing films, and the management, artistic directors, or whatever they call themselves, knows this but chooses to stay silent—even though if they had included, say, children's movies instead, the theme would have been "LET'S BE KIDS"—then we're looking at manipulation designed to avoid any risk of lower attendance.

kaeovo said:Look, sorry, but maybe people should actually look up the films before going. Did the lady expect some summer teen flick? For heaven's sake, this wasn't some surprise screening; you can find plenty of info on these movies online.

Maybe she just didn't expect to end up in a funk every single night. Maybe she learned from previous years' festival editions—and complained about it.

kaeovo said:She has a right to complain, provided it's reasoned and explained.

It seemed reasoned enough to me. The viewer was denied the choice of not being dumped into a depression, regardless of what she chose to watch.

kaeovo said:I don't comment. I respond to stupidity.

Oh, sure—you're the enlightened righteous one, a once-in-a-century phenomenon.

kaeovo said:They charge admission, but that's not how the festival survives.

😕 Are you suggesting the ticket revenue is lining someone's private pockets?

kaeovo said:That's because you agreed to the terms in the first place—it doesn't mean that cash actually turned a profit for the festival.

1.) Is there even another option on the table?
2.) The fact that her money isn't generating profit for the festival is the festival's problem, not hers—it certainly doesn't strip her of her status as a client.

northerncrane4 said:Man, you really are something of an apologist, aren't you?

Stop using words when you don't actually know what they mean. You just end up looking a bit ridiculous.

If—and I’m just speculating here—about 90% of a festival's lineup consists of depressing movies, you have to wonder if the board, the artistic directors, or whoever is running the show is actually aware of this imbalance. It feels like they might be staying silent on purpose. If the theme were something like "Let's All Be Kids" and they filled the schedule with children's films instead, they'd probably face the same criticism. To me, it feels like a calculated move to manipulate the programming just to avoid the risk of lower attendance.

I think your assumptions are a little too broad here. You’re getting into "what if" territory, but I don't recall any year where this festival was branded specifically as a showcase for one particular genre—including this year. No one went in promising a comedy only to be blindsided by a depressing drama. To me, there’s no manipulation happening at all.

Maybe she just wasn't prepared to end up in such a mess every single night. Or perhaps she was just feeling a little wiser after seeing how things went at the festivals in previous years. Either way, she voiced her frustrations.

You shouldn't direct your anger toward people who aren't actually responsible for it.

The viewer isn't really given much of a choice here—they’re essentially being forced into a corner, regardless of which side they decide to support.

Could you let me know which movies you're planning to watch? I'm also curious about how you pick them—do you have specific criteria you follow, or do you just end up watching pretty much everything that comes out?

Oh, sure. You’re basically a one-in-a-hundred-years kind of enlightened saint, aren't you?

No, but I’m glad you feel that way.

Are you seriously suggesting that the ticket revenue is just being funneled straight into someone's private pocket?

Not at all. You might want to check the dictionary under "profit." Or, if you're feeling spicy, look up "apologist" (minus that extra 'a' at the end!).

Is there any other kind of deal on the table?

The deal is this: tickets are going for 20 bucks.$8.25You can grab them and watch the movie if you want, but there's absolutely no pressure to do so.

If her money isn't turning a profit for the festival, that’s on the organizers, not her.

Festivals are non-profit ventures. They basically survive on sponsorships and government grants (mostly). I'm not sure which part of that you missed.

ruggedmarlin15