Sundance Film Festival 2010

Christian Taylor3 said:At the end of the day—or the festival—only one thing really matters:

Sundance Film Festival: Packed houses and over 25,000 viewers

Despite Skepticism, moving the Sundance Film Festival to Movieplex turned out to be a smart move. Aside from today's winners' showcase, the documentaries drew 25,000 visitors over six days, setting a new record for the festival and an absolute milestone for the multiplex. The awards have been handed out, with the new State of Affairs program tackling the crisis of liberal capitalism drawing particular interest; meanwhile, two local films, Irena Škorić's Fate Number 13 and Miroslav Mikuljan's Man with a Milky Way, split the audience award. The risk paid off, and the crowds embraced the new venue, according to festival director Nenad Puhovski.

Mind you, comparing this to those massive Lakers-Celtics games is a stretch—every 'matchup' at Sundance was equally well attended. In fact, they even broke last year's record. 🤷Quality? Well, supposedly the quality remains high enough (certainly enough for AT&T; they aren't crazy enough to walk away from a project like this).

But whatever. I'm just talking nonsense here; Nenad Puhovski is basically a benevolent grandpa in a denim jacket, and to anyone whose life or career hasn't crossed paths with him yet, I truly wish them that experience as soon as possible.

I don't actually know much about Puhovski (still waiting to hear from those highly aggrieved film enthusiasts), but that's hardly a reason not to believe you—it just means I'm not qualified to weigh in any further on the matter.

Yeah, that's a great question for the boss at Factum—just how much should directors actually be getting paid?

I mean, on a budget of maybe $10,000, if that thin little financial structure—along with whatever scraps come from the local Department of Culture—could somehow bump up to $15,000, who would actually be happy with the fees on these projects? And I'll ask again, since you're the pro here: does the producer get a fair cut too? 🤷

Nah, that analogy doesn't really hold water for me. Every single game. In this case, it would mean— All documentary films. They're hitting theaters regularly throughout the year.

Christian Taylor3 Jamie Davis9 said:Sure, let's bump that $120,000 budget up to $200,000—along with whatever bureaucratic markup the Department of Culture wants to tack on. Who would actually be satisfied with the current fees on these projects anyway? I have to ask again—since you're supposedly a professional—does a producer even have a right to their own fee? 🤷

Absolutely. At the end of the day, all those student projects getting greenlit under the Factum umbrella only pass because they’re tied to Factum—nothing else. It's just constant bullying and being played like a fool—what do you think?

I’d love to see some young filmmakers—specifically those who worked under the Factum umbrella—actually speak up. Better yet, I want 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 interesting if they could tell us exactly how much of the ticket revenue actually landed in their pockets. You know, since those students filmed everything without a cent in fees—using the university's production resources rather than Factum's.

Caught three films. The venue was alright—chairs were comfy enough, though AMC definitely has better seating. Hope nobody's judging me for being cozy and refusing to wreck my back in some cheap seat... oh, and yeah, I even grabbed popcorn. 🙂
Organization was a mess. The space is way too cramped, causing bottlenecks at the box office and the snack bar. It felt pretty chaotic. Hopefully, they tighten things up...

films:
City Boy
I expected a lot, but got peanuts... and honestly, what little I did get pissed me off. They tried to manufacture drama and tension, but they relied entirely on a guy who is fundamentally unlikable. He doesn't deserve your attention, let alone your sympathy. It was actually hilarious watching them try to ramp up the stakes by citing his "dangerous" columnist comments, then pulling out the quote: "you deserve a slap"... pure comedy.
The movie would've been fine if the guy showed an ounce of sincerity or integrity... instead, it’s just calculated and pretentious. Garbage.

Second Perfect World
Now this was a different story. I actually loved this. A solid look at virtual worlds and how reality bleeds into them and vice versa. Sure, they show plenty of extreme examples, but they feel real and maybe even hint at where we're heading.
Arid (in a good way)—interesting and knows how to throw you a curveball. Virtual revolutions and all that... highly recommend it to anyone who already has a clue what’s going on. If you don't know anything about virtual spaces or what an "avatar" even is, you might lose the thread. My impression is that this doc will hit hardest with people who are at least partially familiar with the subject matter, and those folks are gonna love it.

Bilal
Amateur film. Some people said it was trash because of the low budget, and I get why, but I actually found the amateurism interesting. I liked it as a raw snapshot of a single moment in time within a struggling community in India. You aren't going to learn much from it; there’s no grand lesson or instruction manual to be found. Regardless, I watched it with genuine interest from start to finish and enjoyed it.

Dr. Nakamatsu's Invention
Great documentary. I usually dig anything Japanese, so maybe that’s bias, but I was seriously gripped. The best part wasn't even his inventions; I was constantly floored by the sheer level of bullshit coming from this one man. The way he communicates, his mindset, the total ego... mixed with some actual funny moments. A true HappyDox film.

Good Morning Lenin
It was obvious this was such garbage that I walked out after 20 minutes. This was so bad I'm actually mad at the organizers for even putting this in the lineup. The title "Lenin" immediately rubbed me the wrong way, especially since everything takes place in Poland. I mean, come on—clueless Americans swallowing whatever crap is served to them on foreign soil. Fine, whatever, at least you can laugh at the massive amount of stupidity and ignorance... but once it became clear this wasn't even a real documentary, but basically a promotional video for some tourism agency/project shot in the style of a low-budget reality show... that was it. Seeing the agency employees "acting" (shots of staff trying to act like weirdly charming, deranged lions and failing miserably) was the final straw. At least uninformed Americans are real, and their ignorance is real, but when the filmmakers themselves are acting and trying to "improve" a documentary that way, you've hit rock bottom.
It really ticked me off that they included such bottom-tier trash in the program. It's the first time in my life I've actually walked out of a theater, but this stuff was straight-up insulting to my intelligence...

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 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.

I find myself agreeing with Michelle Gonzalez regarding both the venue and the crowd, though I must admit the KC felt quite cramped at times, and there is certainly room for improvement when it comes to the logistics. Sadly, I didn't manage to catch everything, but from what I did see...

I Want to Be Boss—a rather intriguing documentary focusing on the final year of a certain Chinese high school and the immense pressure these kids face from both their parents and society at large. It follows five specific students, though towards the end, the focus shifts abruptly to just one of them in an attempt to make a broader societal commentary, which I personally found a bit jarring.

Urban Pulse: Shanghai—this looks at the metamorphosis of that massive metropolis and how an older couple struggles to find their footing amidst all the change. The protagonist, a man in his 40s, photographs the city as he tries to document or perhaps rediscover the identity of Shanghai. It was interesting enough, though nothing particularly groundbreaking.

The Worst Company in the World—as someone else mentioned, this was such a charming and unpretentious film about three "nobodies." If the awards for Happydox were up for grabs, I would have handed it to them immediately.

Urban Pulse: Mumbai—Interrupted—a depiction of life in Mumbai through three different lenses: a poor immigrant arriving in the megalopolis searching for a better life (symbolized by his attempt to buy a car), the big-city player pushing for the construction of a vital new road, and a very well-to-do elderly lady who represents the residents fighting against that very road (an overpass) because it threatens to destroy their bourgeois peace. The film presents all of this without taking sides, which I personally appreciated; everyone has their own justifications.

U.N. Me—a fairly compelling and, at certain points, quite shocking look at the inefficiency and corruption within the UN. However, I was deeply unsettled by how the film subtly pushes the demonization of certain nations, and one of the filmmakers even revealed himself during the Q&A as a typical representative of the holy American mission in the world. It was disappointing. The moment a CIA representative was brought up to comment on human rights, the film lost all credibility for me.

Anatomy of Hate: A Dialogue for Hope—the filmmaker spent six years following various extremist organizations and movements in America and Israel, interviewing three experts (a philosopher, a sociologist/anthropologist, and a psychologist, if my memory serves) to dissect the nature of hate. It was a deeply moving film, at least for me. Just when I thought it was over, the director added a segment about people trying to rise above all that extremist nonsense, providing a sense of hope for a better tomorrow. Personally, I thought it was a lovely and profound piece of work.

A Long Journey Through History, History and Past—I honestly don't know what to say about this romanticized quasi-documentary other than that it left me feeling quite irritated. It throws together these glossy vignettes about the lies of brotherhood and unity that don't actually offer anything new or provide any deep insight; it approaches the whole issue so superficially just to avoid offending anyone. Good grief, what a waste of money, of the journey they took, and of the people they gathered to speak. After the film, Jergović remarked something along the lines of needing to respect other people's truths. Oh, please. That’s certainly not how we progress.

Crude Oil—about the struggle of 30,000 Ecuadorians against an American oil company that devastated their environment and, consequently, their health. What was interesting was how the film showed that you can't really achieve anything without the blatant use of media and celebrities. On one side, you have the "simple" indigenous people seeking justice and the restoration of what was lost, and on the other, you have a pragmatic American advisor and Sting and his wife, who acted as the only real help to these people by providing clean water.

Dr. Nakamatsu's Invention & Good Morning, Lenins—I am in complete agreement with dustytrucker51. We also marched behind Lenin because it was simply too much to bear.

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.

Please, give me some examples of these ridiculous questions; I am genuinely curious 😁
I attended the Q&A session following the screening of *U.N. Me*, particularly because we were honored by the presence of the director himself—who, interestingly enough, works as an investment banker here in the States.
From what I can recall, the questions were as follows:
1) Why didn't the documentary mention Srebrenica regarding the various atrocities committed by the UN, yet it chose to highlight things like Rwanda?
2) What is the director's take on why the UN is such a complete disaster?
And finally... one rather controversial question:
3) Why did the director spend so much time criticizing the UN and certain nations like Iran or even France, but failed to direct any of that criticism toward America?
To that last question, the director was met with a chorus of boos and a resounding "buuuuu" from the room. 🤣

Anthony Garcia10 said:Please, give me some examples of these ridiculous questions; I am genuinely curious 😁
I attended the Q&A session following the screening of *U.N. Me*, particularly because we were honored by the presence of the director himself—who, interestingly enough, works as an investment banker here in the States.
From what I can recall, the questions were as follows:
1) Why didn't the documentary mention Srebrenica regarding the various atrocities committed by the UN, yet it chose to highlight things like Rwanda?
2) What is the director's take on why the UN is such a complete disaster?
And finally... one rather controversial question:
3) Why did the director spend so much time criticizing the UN and certain nations like Iran or even France, but failed to direct any of that criticism toward America?
To that last question, the director was met with a chorus of boos and a resounding "buuuuu" from the room. 🤣

It’s no surprise at all that he faced such a backlash. He chose to attack a young man who was simply asking, quite calmly and politely, why he keeps bringing up Iran and Syria while completely avoiding any mention of America.
To me, he is nothing short of a hero. 😁

Dennis Cooper3 said:It’s no surprise at all that he faced such a backlash. He chose to attack a young man who was simply asking, quite calmly and politely, why he keeps bringing up Iran and Syria while completely avoiding any mention of America.
To me, he is nothing short of a hero. 😁

Look, the young man posed a perfectly valid question—though I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to label him a hero, but still, he did well enough 😁 He didn't actually attack him; he just provided an answer as to why it wasn't included. Granted, the explanation might not be entirely satisfying to us, but even the director himself admitted that he understood the curiosity behind the inquiry, calling it a fair question. 😁

What were your overall thoughts on the Doc?

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.

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.

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.

northerncrane4 said:Nah, that analogy doesn't really hold water for me. Every single game. In this case, it would mean— All documentary films. They're hitting theaters regularly throughout the year.

Absolutely. At the end of the day, all those student projects getting greenlit under the Factum umbrella only pass because they’re tied to Factum—nothing else. It's just constant bullying and being played like a fool—what do you think?

I’d love to see some young filmmakers—specifically those who worked under the Factum umbrella—actually speak up. Better yet, I want 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 interesting if they could tell us exactly how much of the ticket revenue actually landed in their pockets. You know, since those students filmed everything without a cent in fees—using the university's production resources rather than Factum's.

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?

Michelle Gonzalez said: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.

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. 😁

Anthony Garcia10 said:Look, the young man posed a perfectly valid question—though I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to label him a hero, but still, he did well enough 😁 He didn't actually attack him; he just provided an answer as to why it wasn't included. Granted, the explanation might not be entirely satisfying to us, but even the director himself admitted that he understood the curiosity behind the inquiry, calling it a fair question. 😁

What were your overall thoughts on the Doc?

As I mentioned earlier, I found it quite intriguing, though there were certain nuances that truly rubbed me the wrong way. Since when did the CIA become some sort of authority on human rights? While one segment did a decent job of digging into the UN, the overall perspective felt somewhat one-sided and superficial. It swings quite wildly from being incredibly heavy—dealing with the genocide in the Ivory Coast—to this almost irreverent scene about chasing after the head of the UN mission (which felt a bit self-indulgent, if you ask me). In my opinion, the film could have been much stronger. Still, I am fairly certain it will find a very receptive audience here in America.

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. 😁

Look, if even you—someone who’ll swallow any conspiracy theory out there—find this hard to believe, then it probably isn't true. 🤷

Christian Taylor3 said:If Puhovski is doing this, skimming off the top of American documentaries—then what on earth are feature film producers doing? The scavengers, even those production houses with a few approved projects a year. You know that all too well—just ask Ankica.

Well, the aforementioned Ankica has a rather inconvenient habit of spending every cent on production—hiring the best talent on the market—before she even thinks about how much of her allocated budget she'll actually keep.

But money isn't in films anymore anyway—today, the money is in soap operas and running film festivals.

Christian Taylor3 said:And what portion of ticket sales goes to—who?—the authors? This is the first I've heard of it; what kind of film festival pays out that kind of fee?

And when was the last time you heard of a film festival charging admission for student exercises led by the festival director himself?

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. 😉

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.

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. 😁

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.😉

Dennis Cooper3 said:As I mentioned earlier, I found it quite intriguing, though there were certain nuances that truly rubbed me the wrong way. Since when did the CIA become some sort of authority on human rights? While one segment did a decent job of digging into the UN, the overall perspective felt somewhat one-sided and superficial. It swings quite wildly from being incredibly heavy—dealing with the genocide in the Ivory Coast—to this almost irreverent scene about chasing after the head of the UN mission (which felt a bit self-indulgent, if you ask me). In my opinion, the film could have been much stronger. Still, I am fairly certain it will find a very receptive audience here in America.

Oh, right! I only realized just now that you had already posted your thoughts on the film.
Yes, I find myself in complete agreement with your assessment—it scratched the surface, but it certainly could have dug much deeper.
In my view, the audience started turning on the film the exact moment he suggested that while perhaps America isn't perfect, at least they aren't hanging gay people over there.🤣

Anthony Garcia10 said:Oh, right! I only realized just now that you had already posted your thoughts on the film.
Yes, I find myself in complete agreement with your assessment—it scratched the surface, but it certainly could have dug much deeper.
In my view, the audience started turning on the film the exact moment he suggested that while perhaps America isn't perfect, at least they aren't hanging gay people over there.🤣

Exactly. And then we went right into watching Anatomy of Hate, and wouldn't you know it? The opening scene touches on exactly that: the killing of gay individuals by far-right extremists in the States. 😁

Michelle Gonzalez said: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?

I lost my cool too because I couldn't snag tickets for some of the Sundance Film Festival movies. Anyway, I'm wrapping this up and raising a beer (obviously 😁) to the hope that one day we actually get to see one of your films at a festival. 🙂