I laughed once.

Our favorite R-rated, shockingly vulgar “wolfpack” is now domesticated. No more drugs, black-outs, sex with Hunts Point hookers, or Thai ladyboys.

The funniest moments are when Alan (Zach Galifianakis) asks Phil (Bradley Cooper) nonsense questions and Phil looks at him and doesn’t answer.

THE HANGOVER PART lll is not a comedy. It’s been made for either (a) fulfilling talent’s contracts, or (b) the big salaries. No one did it for the joy of making a great comedy.

In 2009 the HANGOVER team made the highest-grossing R-rated comedy ever…so far. Why try and top that? Better yet, make a lousy, unfunny, not even mean-spirited movie to finish off the trilogy and pay-off the actor’s re-negotiated back-end. Save the funny script for the next movie with a group of actors and actresses that can be brought – as Cooper, Galifianakis, Helms originally were – for a pittance.

Bradley Cooper, thanks to David O. Russell, is now a first-class actor. Cooper certainly does not need THE HANGOVER PART lll to stay working.

In PART lll, our trio does not do anything to initiate bad behavior. They are bystanders. No, even better, they are Good Samaritans. Alan has been off his meds – anti-psychotics? – so Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms) and Doug (Justin Bartha) volunteer to take him to Arizona to a really lavish treatment facility. On the way, they are kidnapped by goons sent by crime boss Marshall (John Goodman).

Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) stole $21 million of gold bricks from Marshall. Chow has escaped from a Chinese prison and is on the loose. Marshall thinks that the Wolf Pack can find Chow so he holds Doug hostage as the Wolf Pack goes on the hunt. As with PART l and ll, poor Doug is left in the woodshed.

Making Chow the prominent focus of PART lll is a big mistake. His arch voice becomes highly irritating and he has lost whatever good will the audience had for him. In Chow’s case, it is true: “Less is More”.

Cooper and Helms walk through their parts – actually, they just stand around not at all invested in their characters, the situations, or the movie. Their faces say: “How much longer do I have to be here?”

For all the reasons the MPAA rightfully gave THE HANGOVER an “R” rating (…adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements…), PART lll gets an “R” for using the “F word” too many times.

This is about how raunchy PART lll gets.

Melissa McCarthy, playing pawn store employee Cassie, knows how to take one scene and run with it; Heather Graham, returning as Stu’s former loopy prostitute-with-a kid but now satisfied, happy middle-class pregnant housewife Jade, does not do anything with her cameo appearance.

What a disappointment. What a let-down.

Victoria Alexander is a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association: www.bfca.org/ and the Las Vegas Film Critics Society: www.lvfcs.org/. Victoria’s weekly column, “The Devil’s Hammer,” is posted every Monday. http://www.fromthebalcony.com/editorials.php.

If you would like to be included on Victoria’s private distribution list for a weekly preview, just email her at masauu@aol.com. Victoria lives in Las Vegas, Nevada and answers every email. You can contact Victoria directly at masauu@aol.com.

Rithy Panh

As part of the month long Season of Cambodia Arts festival in New York, the Film Society of Lincoln Center and noted Cambodia documentary filmmaker Rithy Panh presented Old Ghosts, New Dreams: The Emerging Cambodian Cinema.  The festival ran from April 19-25. The program included ten documentaries and several short films focusing primarily on the devastating impact of the Khmer Rouge regime and development issues dislocating Cambodian society.  Only few of the productions had been shown before In New York like S21: THE KHMER ROUGE DEATH MACHINE (Rithy Panh, 2002)   covering the torture and murder of 13 000 at the S21 prison and GOLDEN SLUMBERS (Davy Chou, 2011), a compelling investigation reconstructing Cambodia’s history of film. Most of the other productions screened were New York premieres and would not have been accessible otherwise.

DUCH, MASTER OF THE FORGES OF HELL  (Rithy Panh, 2012), provides a compelling portrait of  Kaing Guek, known as Duch, who was in charge of the S21 torture prison in Phnom Penh. Using the narrative by Duch from extensive face to face interviews and archival material with eye witness accounts Rithy Panh reconstructs the human destruction Duch engineered.  Duch discusses his rise to power and describes himself as a pure a pure instrument of the party, Ankgar, and claims he acted in the interest of his own survival. He denies having been involved in torturing prisoners because he feared the pain it caused and only taught the theory of enhanced interrogation techniques and torture. But does however admit that the function of S-21 was to turn lies into truth and provides a detailed description of the tools of torture and claims amnesia when confronted with testimony that he was personally involved

RED WEDDING (Lida Chan and Guillaume Soun, 2012). Produced by Rithy Panh, this documentary covers the Khmer Rouge policy of forcing more than 4000 Cambodian women to marry soldiers. Four decades later one of the victims Sochan Pen searches for justice. After her rape on wedding night she remains traumatized by the memory and has not been able to let go of the shame she experienced. In traditional Cambodian culture one cannot talk about it, even to members of the family. She investigates those who gave the orders. Some confirm their participation but claimed they had no other options “If we behaved correctly [enforcing marriages] we live, if not we could die”, others denied knowledge.  Some who gave orders remain silent since they still had the same position as village chiefs they had under Khmer Rouge rule. Sochan’s criminal complaint filed with UN sanctioned authorities has not yet resulted in effective responses

THE LAND OF WANDERING SOULS (Rithy Panh, 1999). Groups of migrant laborers are digging trenches by hand for high tech optic cables to connect Cambodia to other Asian countries and are paid starving wages by Alcatel the French company which hired them.  They were paid 60 cents for one meter (40 inches) of cable dug and laid. But as illiterate former soldiers and impoverished rice farmers they have few if any other options. They and members of their families, including many children dig and in the process find land mines and bones from the war period. Food is derived from the land surrounding the trenches from ants to snakes, buying rice or borrowing money for it. They live next to the trenches with members of their families, exploited by contractors who hired them. In one case the contractor disappears with the money they earned, resulting in a return after seven or eight month of work to their villages as impoverished as they left them.  They have no earnings to pay off debts and support their families. This chronicle of the life of ditch diggers reflects the utmost poverty and privations the poorest have to endure in Cambodia and their lack of representation. The costs of brining Cambodia into the modern age are born by those who can least afford it the poorest of the poor.

THE LAST REFUGE (Ann-Laure Poree and Guillaume Soun, 2013). Deforestation for foreign owned rubber plantations destroys living space and burial places for the Bunon, a hill tribe in eastern Cambodia.  They lose their culture and ethnic identity and skills passed on from generation to generation such as the craft of weaving. No room is left for the invocation of the spirits and their life cannot be reconciled with the market mechanism of modernity as the juxtaposition of a bulldozer destroying their burial grounds and a traditional ceremony invoking the spirits shows. Their attempts to stop the havoc fail since the local police and authorities cooperate with the companies invading their land.  Nor does the tribe have the knowledge or leadership to mount an effective opposition. As a member puts it “money destroys our values and forests”. Some are indebted and have to sell their land; others are forced to trade good land against bad land.  There is no escape they have to work for foreign corporations and their loggers to support their families

A RIVER CHANGES COURSE (Kalyanee Mam, 2012). Following three Cambodians and their families Kalyanee Mam demonstrates the impact of development on rural living and the devastating shift from a primarily agricultural society to a more industrial one. Mam who was the director of photography for the Oscar-winning INSIDE JOB,  records in this superbly filmed journey  from the innermost forests to the garment factories of  Phnom Penh the life conditions of these Cambodians.   Deforestation  and loss of land deprives  villagers of their traditional resources for living,  commercial fishing  leaves no space for individual  fisherman, and  over whelming debts  prompted by poor  harvests  impairs traditional life styles. Thus children are forced to work in the city to support their rural families and pay their debts. There is no more work in the countryside and many rural dwellers are forced to sell their land.  The land once needed for subsistence farming is now used for large scale plantations. Money and market culture displace traditional life styles and as noted by one villager, they all will round up working for the Chinese.

FIVE LIVES (2010).  Trained by Rithy Panh in documentary film making,   five young directors provide compelling presentations of survival in Phnom Penh. Lida Chan focuses in MY YESTERDAY LIFE on a teenage girl who moves to the capital to work in the garment districts but ends up in as a singer in a karaoke bar with some support through an affair.  Though she still has the fantasy of joining a band, she sees no alternative to her current way of life. She must support her family of five members, living in a village including an alcoholic father, a destitute mother and her child.  In THE SCALE BOY Civic Nemag shows us the life of a young boy of Vietnamese descent who has a temporary stay with an acquaintance of his mother but must leave. He makes little money with his scale, will be homeless soon and has no place to live. He resents his estranged mother not able to help him and loathes his distant father.   In A BLURRED WAY OF LIFE Sopheak Sao shows how girls aged 1o years and older are making a living selling newspapers in the capital. One has to supports her country side family including an impoverished mother who suffers from depressions and cannot work. Her father has already died of AIDS. She actually started the supporting her family before she was teen agers and accepts her life because it is her karma. Adding to this, her mother emphasizes there is no time for an education since she has to take care of the family. I CAN BE WHO I AM is ironically the least disconcerting of these documentaries. This production portraits young boys who are lady boys.  Sarin Chhoun offers a very sensitive documentation of the life of cross dressing boys who prefers acting like women.  With reluctance they are accepted by their families but do experience the ridicule and mocking by the outside world. They make a living working in karaoke bars, barbershops or the cosmetic business and if they can afford take hormones to feminize their bodies.  They are aware of the problems faced in Cambodian society, question why they are lady boys and not normal but do not convey the hopelessness found in the other documentaries. To the contrary as one put it they will not go back but plan for a future that will be better. A PEDAL MAN by Katank Yos is among the best films in this group. It is a superbly filmed presentation of the life of tricyclists making a living through deliveries and picking up fares.  Katank Yos excels in filming at night time and close up shots.  The cyclist has no home, lives on the street where he sleeps, eats and washes up.  Making about 7000 riel (less than 2 USD) a day he sends money to his wife for food and her donations to the pagoda.  In his late 50’s, though looking much older, he is afraid of aging and not working.   Now he just makes enough to eat and drink. He notes the corruption in Cambodia “the rich are rich and exploit the poor”, but does not show despair.

The productions presented here demonstrate the expanding Cambodian film industry specifically in the documentary field with much credit going to Rithy Panh.  The realistic image presented of Cambodia and its development issues is sobering.

Director J.J. Abrams, who has just been anointed to take over Star Wars, makes a Star Trek movie that is a lot of fun, thanks to an engaging script, pitch-perfect performances and stellar digital effects. It even, for the first time, contains a bona-fide bromance between Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and his Vulcan antagonist, Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto)  breaking free of some of the trademarks of the original series.

The film begins with Kirk, Spock and the crew of the Enterprise-Uhura(Zoe Saldana),Bones(Karl Urban)Scotty (Simon Pegg)Chekov(Anton Yelchin) and Sulu (John Cho)boldly breaking The Prime Directive(i.e. no interference with the normal development of an alien civilization)in order to save a threatened civilization.  The result of this illegal action gets Kirk demoted and his ship taken away and Spock reassigned. However, they are reunited when a genetically modified terrorist named John Harrison (a wonderfully complex Benedict Cumberbatch) launches an all-out lethal attack with a determined revenge motive on the Starfleet Headquarters. When Harrison is revealed to be hiding on the planet Kronos, Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) deploys Kirk to hunt down and destroy him.  The assignment has the added complication of violating international law and could result in a world war with the residents of Kronos known as Klingons.

The iterations of Star Trek that Abrams has created are “prequels” to the original series created by Gene Roddenberry, which were broadcast between 1966 and 1969 on NBC. What makes the revived series work so well was that the 2009 “Star Trek” screenplay by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (who also wrote “Into Darkness” with Damon Lindelof) allows Mr. Spock to alter the past creating new stories that are free of the imperatives inherent in the 10 previous features and 4 TV series. Nevertheless, the clever script mixes mischief with respect for the original versions of this classic and is engaging and a delight to watch. The 3D is immersive and the 2 hours and 7 minutes running time feels comfortable.  It is a satisfying and well crafted entertainment experience.

The Great Gatsby – written by F. Scott Fitzgerald in 1921 – is one of America’s great novels. Oh really?

First and foremost, the narrator, Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire)*, dominates the film. As we will find out why later, Nick is currently in a sanitarium and telling a doctor what happened in the summer of 1922. Is he a patient because of some traumatic war injury, he was lost a sea for 79 days and forced to eat his companions, or he killed his parents in a fit of uncontrollable rage?

Oh no! It’s far worse than any of these scenarios.

The film is all about Nick and his “Gee whiz” face of wonderment as he wanders like a starry-eyed child into the degenerate display of excess by the “mysterious” Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). We are in the world of the very wealthy living in mansions on Long Island. Directly across from Gatsby’s mansion happens to be the mansion of old money blue blood Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton) and his wife Daisy (Carey Mulligan).

Tom is a serial cheater. Daisy lounges around all day. Daisy is spoiled but hardly a devastating beauty. She has no sex appeal or charisma. Since Nick is Daisy’s cousin, how come he is in such awe of wealth? Daisy married well but she certainly did not help her family. Clearly, Nick was never invited to the Buchanan’s mansion.

Guess what? The Buchanan’s have no idea that Gatsby is the owner of the Versailles-like property. Gatsby has huge indulgent parties every weekend but Daisy has no clue her former boyfriend is the man who spies on them from across Long Island Sound.

Tom takes Nick to New York City and they indulge in some provocative horseplay with Tom’s mistress Myrtle (Isla Fisher) and her girlfriends. Like a wide-eyed schoolboy, Nick succumbs and gets blind drunk and dances with abandonment. Tom and Nick are now tight, but soon Nick is wondering about his reclusive neighbor, Jay Gatsby.

Finally, after watching awestruck Nick dominate the film for half an hour, Gatsby arrives!

Not to be outdone by Tom’s entertainment expertise, Gatsby takes Nick to a speakeasy and introduces him to a friend, notorious gambler Meyer Wolfshiem (Amitabh Bachchan).

Gatsby befriends Nick – who has taken a small cottage next to his mansion – for one simple reason. He wants Nick to invite his cousin Daisy to the little cottage for tea.

Nick keeps looking adoringly at Gatsby and sitting way too close to him. They are always smiling at each other. They wait at the cottage for the arrival of Daisy.

In a hilarious scene, Gatsby sweats, gasps and fumbles around in fear and trepidation. He is so nervous he flees into the pouring rain. Soaking wet, he returns to a waiting Daisy. He looks into the face of God and collapses. As he falls he takes an antique clock with him.

A man of such wealth – due to some unsavory business deals with Russians – he has acquired manners and style and created a mysterious aura around himself. But he’s a blithering mess around Daisy.

After Daisy dumped him, dirt-poor Gatsby went to war. Returning, he decided to become the man Daisy deserves. Daisy was Gatsby’s obsession. He cares for nothing he owns and can easily do without the 10 manservants he employs. He doesn’t even go to his vulgar, excessive parties. He just looks out his window at Daisy’s house. He built everything to entice her to divorce Tom and marry him.

It’s been five years since Gatsby saw Daisy. Up against the aggressively virile Tom, pink-suited Gatsby looks like a dandy. Every time he sees Daisy he cries. No wonder Daisy is torn between the two men.

As we have learned, Tom is constantly cheating on Daisy. He’s no good. Gatsby might be extremely wealthy now, but if it’s due to something illegal, he could lose it all. And, he does not have the right social credentials or education. His grandparents and parents are nobodies. Daisy takes all this into account.

The tragic ending of Nick’s summer sends him straight to the mental hospital. His doctor’s advice is to write it all down.

The director, Baz Luhrmann, does Mulligan no favors. Her lighting is awful. There is not one hint of why Gatsby is obsessed with her. We are given not one reason to accept her as the great Gatsby’s enthrallment. Mulligan is cute but she does not have the smoldering sexuality that is barely contained.

Why Carey Mulligan?**

Luhrmann told The Hollywood Reporter, “Leonardo was at every audition. He worked with me – it was work. He is not an acting snob but I guess if he was a chef, he can really tell what is fine cuisine. So Carey came in. I’d swapped scenes (to read during the audition) and forgot and (the script said) she kisses him. (Mulligan) grabbed me… and she said, ‘Should I? Should I kiss him?’ I went, ‘Yeah, but don’t tell him!’”

“So she does the scene, absolutely fantastic, and grabs him and kisses him. She went out the door and I was just thinking, ‘My God, that is Daisy Buchanan.’”I would love to see the other auditions, wouldn’t you? Someone has them and needs to YouTube them.

As I have said, there is way too much Tobey Maguire. And Luhrmann keeps the camera on him even when he is at Gatsby’s rave surrounded by drinking, dancing, entertainers, and beautiful women. One grows tired of the innocent, naïve Nick fast. If Nick is supposed to represent us, we are far more sophisticated.

DiCaprio is a major star but why did he allow Gatsby to be portrayed in such a wimpy-ass way? If “THE GREAT GATSBY” is really about social elitism and class identity, why not highlight the differences and the old money folks looking down on Gatsby’s ill-bred display of wealth?

The sensational opulence on display, a Luhrmann trademark, looks rushed. When has a mob ever been sexy? Gatsby’s bacchanalia centered on drinking and wasn’t very decadent. Gatsby role was as director and bemused voyeur.

The 3D was nice but unnecessary. You hardly noticed it.

Victoria Alexander is a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association: www.bfca.org/ and the Las Vegas Film Critics Society: www.lvfcs.org/. Victoria’s weekly column, “The Devil’s Hammer,” is posted every Monday. http://www.fromthebalcony.com/editorials.php.

If you would like to be included on Victoria’s private distribution list for a weekly preview, just email her at masauu@aol.com. Victoria lives in Las Vegas, Nevada and answers every email. You can contact Victoria directly at masauu@aol.com.

*What has Tobey Maguire been up to since leaving the Spider-Man franchise? From several sources, including digitalspy and radaronline, comes the following: “The Spider-Man actor was named in an illegal gambling suit in 2011 in which he was sued for taking part in the card game with jailed criminal Bradley Ruderman. Maguire is among more than a dozen high-profile Hollywood people being sued in connection with a mega-millions illegal gambling ring that ran high-stakes underground poker games, Star magazine is reporting exclusively.”

“Maguire, 35, won more than $300,000 from a Beverly Hills hedgefund manager who embezzled investor funds and orchestrated a Ponzi scheme in a desperate bid to pay off his monster debt to the star and others, it’s alleged. Tobey Maguire has insisted that he was unaware that he was breaking the law upon becoming involved in unlicensed poker games, which also involved Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio and Ben Affleck. Maguire won as much as $1 million a month over a period of three years, one source told Star Magazine. “That means he could have made up to $30 to $40 million from these games,” the whistle-blowing card shark predicted to Star. In a world exclusive investigation, Star detailed how the A-list aces used secret passwords to play in the covert games that were so intense, the door was manned by armed guards in bulletproof vests. http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/06/tobey-maguire-sued-illegal-poker-game-leonardo-dicaprio-ben-affleck-matt-damon/

**Carey Mulligan’s New Look, September 13th, 2010. Carey Mulligan was Hollywood’s It Girl last year. Now, she’s looking more polished on the red carpet, dyed her hair blonde, and gotten some plastic surgery. She wants the big Hollywood career. Check out her nose, the bridge is slimmer and the tip of her nose is different. And, in the after photo, her eyes look wider and more open. That could only be from a brow lift. Don’t let the hair color change fool you. http://www.goodplasticsurgery.com/2010/09/13/carey-mulligans-new-look/

Claus Mueller     What are the objectives of Japan Cuts?

Samuel Jamier     To entertain, provoke, and show the variety of films

CM       How many films were submitted for the 2012 edition and selected from other      sources?

SJ       The selection is curated. There’s only a handful of submissions, and most of the time the films that are submitted (i.e unsolicited)    don’t actually make the cut.

CM       What is the funding basis for your fest?

SJ       It’s a mix of corporate support, grants, and individual giving.

CM     What is the relative shares of. public funding which you receive?

SJ       Virtually nothing comes from public funding (the info is publicly available).

CM      Do Japanese public funders/sponsors consider the important role Japan Cuts     may be playing as an instrument of public diplomacy?

SJ       I certainly hope so.  Though on the Japanese side, I don’t think film is exactly a   priority.

CM      What is the percentage share of revenue through sales of tickets?

SJ       Around 60 %.

CM       Which target audience do you try to attract and how big is it?

SJ       Young people. Or “young-ish” people – under 40, though anyone’s welcome obviously. We get around 6000, including the co-presentations with the New York Asian Film Festival (which I’m co-directing).

CM     Has it changed over the last years?

SJ       Yes, it’s grown quite a bit.  The selection used to be more “indie”-oriented. There’s still a substantial “indie” section, but I usually seek variety, and try to cover as wide a span of genres as possible.

CM      What is the rough proportion of your audience which has Japanese –American descent?

Not too many. Hard to say, maybe 10~15%. On the other hand, for some   screenings we have a large number of members of the Japanese community (long-time residents, foreign students, people who work for Japanese     corporations in the US for a few years)

CM      Japanese films are grossing less in the US than other Asian films, compared to those from India, Taiwan, China and Hong Kong. What are the reasons?

SJ        You’re right: Indian films perform very well in the US, but they have their own distribution circuit; and I guess that’s a different matter.

Japanese cinema is still both a prestigious and cool brand. It lives and prospers a lot off the grandeur of its past, particularly the 50s and 60s, its golden age. You have a larger name of recognizable names, established auteurs – from Ozu to Kurosawa.  And now you have directors like Miike or Sono, who are quite big in the international film festival circuit and perpetuate, in a way, part of this prestige.

Having said that, as a whole, I think a lot of Americans still think of Japanese films as weird or difficult, or both. That probably comes into play on any levels.  What makes some of the recent films popular (the “Asian extreme” aspect, their  weirdness or violence)  is also what limits their popularity.

CM     Do you note in general an increase or a decline of interest in Japan and its  films?

SJ       In the US, a little, yes.  In the all-encompassing category that is “foreign cinema”  here, there’s a lot of competition. New exciting productions are coming out.

CM      Do new digital platforms such as Japanflix enhance the role of your          festival as a gate keeper and would they enlarge the audience for Japanese   films?

SJ       Not sure if the festival is a “gate keeper”. I hope it’s more of a “gate breaker” in      fact.  We don’t really have a relationship with Japanflix, but it would be interesting  if my successor(s) here develop one.

CM      How do you assess the importance of other platforms such as netflix for   making the Japanese films accessible?

SJ       Tremendous, and it’s clearly biting chunks off the theatrical market, as I’m sure a  lot of people are aware. It’s pretty interesting these days, since there’s a  multiplication of this type of streaming platforms. They certainly contribute a lot to making foreign films – not just Japanese—accessible to a wide audience.

CM      Is the US market important for Japanese directors and producers or do they generate sufficient box office in Japan, thus face less pressure  for US coin?

SJ       Yes of course. The Japan film market is still pretty big, though it’s lost second  place to China and is now the 3rd largest market in the world.

Japanese film companies haven’t really been successful at penetrating the US market (they were a bit more aggressive around 2007~8)., but that doesn’t mean  there’s less pressure for international sales.  Interest – from local companies – has simply declined a great deal.

CM      What are the biggest challenges you experience?

SJ       Here in New York, you’re in competition with pretty much everything else,  culturally, and it doesn’t matter if it’s film, music, opera. There’s so much going on, ALL the time. That’s a very tough environment to work in. Also, obviously, working in a mid to large-size institution (or should I say, bureaucracy) can be very constraining at times.

CM      Thank you.

As in past editions of the festival documentaries played an important role in terms of quality and scope of topics. In addition to themes of the films reviewed below, the international documentary competition included productions devoted to the struggle for independence by Timor-Leste, impact of Alzheimer’s disease on a family, the violent 1985 conflict between the radical Afro American MOVE group and Philadelphia authorities, and the international market positioning of French Bordeaux wines. It is noteworthy that feature documentaries accounted for 1,400 submissions and short documentaries for 445. An increasing number of documentaries is submitted to major film festivals like Tribeca, Sundance, Toronto and the Berlinale. But only a small number are selected for the festivals’ final program. Not all succeed getting distribution after festival exposure nor score success at the box office or other platforms. Even fewer have a significant impact on policy making, the judicial process, or resource allocation in the issue areas they addressed. Documentaries may generate passionate discussions but do not necessarily succeed in convincing the audience to engage in action in support of the cause embraced. Among those of greatest appeal to me were:

MICHAEL H – PROFESSION: DIRECTOR by Yves Montmayeur. Though labeled as a puppet master of actors, a terrorist director and an individual obsessed with the morbid, Michael Haneke has an undisputed reputation of ranking among the most creative and influential contemporary film makers, on par with Lars von Trier and David Lynch. Few question the standing of films he directed such as THE PIANO TEACHER, CACHE, THE WHITE RIBBON, and the most recent AMOUR. Montmayeur provides excellent insights into Haneke as an individual and as a director interviewing him and actors he has worked with and using many illustrative excerpts from Haneke’s films. Haneke points out that there is no single truth but thousands of them, He tries to catch the contradictions of reality and to destabilize the spectator’s notion that film is equivalent to reality. Having turned down “idiotic film proposals from Hollywood” he has refused to become part of the theater of distraction and considers both the content and form of his films as a reaction to contemporary cinema where most film makers follow the commercial dictum. He considers artists to be privileged since they can work out their misery and neurosis in their art as Haneke does. Conversely the audience should not “consume violence” but experience it to emphasize with the pain of others.  In his work real beauty stands for truthfulness which for Haneke is the reduction of complex realities to the essentials and the purge of all superfluous elements. He cannot explain himself or his films but expects the audience to decipher them refusing to engage in discussion of the meaning.

BIG MEN by Rachel Boyton is certainly among the best documentary productions this year. Boyton provides cogent analyses and visual representations of foreign oil exploitation in Ghana and Nigeria. The greed to become Big Men motivates the principals, including Wall Street funders. It shows global capitalism at work with US based equity funded corporations having a decisive influence on local decision making in Ghana. They force Ghana and other developing countries to settle disputes with the threat that there would be no more direct foreign investments. After the first  accountings was completed foreign companies made a profit of $2billion and Ghana received  $444 million, though it is not clear what Ghana’s share was spent on.  In Nigeria Niger delta militants interfere successfully with oil exploration by blowing up pipelines and oil installations owned by foreign companies or stealing oil. Their plausible claim is that the environment is destroyed by foreign companies, that no benefits are passed on to the local populations, and that the Nigeria’s government   system is beset by corruptions. At the end the rebels settle with the promise of a steady income from regional agencies, a promise they do not trust. Boyton demonstrates global problems, the dependency of developing countries on foreign direct investment capital and decision making, wide spread local corruption and an apparent failure of passing through the benefits derived from the national oil resources to the population.

OXYANA; Sean Dunne received the award as the best new documentary director for this portrait of the devastation of the small town of Oceana in West Virginia through the widespread use of OxyContin, a powerful popular and addictive pain killer. The epidemic drug abuse among its residents resulted in the town to be known as Oxyana, though other communities are now suffering the similar fate of unrestrained drug abuse.  Dunne provides a spell binding portrait of the addicts and dealers, of the impact of drugs on their everyday life and the hopeless conditions they are living in. There is unemployment and widespread poverty.  As one addict relates the only way of making a living is by selling pills or engaging in prostitution to feed habits running up to $800 a day. Half of a recent high school graduating class died within two years from overdoses or other drugs related causes; thus early death and hopelessness have become part of the grim expectations the residents share. The community is decomposed and there is no trust in friends or family. OxyCon pills dominate life more so than one’s children as an addicted mother articulates. The despair and agony depicted defy description. Yet one wonders about those in town who are not addicted. Little space is devoted to the authorities, teachers, and law enforcement officials. We get only brief glances and comments as if Oxyana has been totally abandoned.

The Kill Team; Dan Krauss features in this film a group of soldiers who become willing participants in the murder of civilians in Afghanistan and the cover ups. The Kill Team is a superbly constructed documentation of the fate of one soldier, Adam Winfield, who is not attracted to this warrior’s paradise as others are. Rather he joined the marines on idealistic grounds. For other soldiers the toleration of violence has become accepted because they were trained to become killers. Adam is forced to join to the killing platoon and participates in one killing mission subsequently disguised as combat engagement.  The platoon leader Calvin Gibbs might dispose him otherwise, a credible threat. Calvin is known for collecting fingers he had cut off his victims. Adam had earlier advised his father a former military officer of the murder. But the interventions with the authorities had no consequences. To the contrary Adam Winfield is tried for murder to and pleads guilty to a lesser charge.  Others in the team  get long sentences, though one defendant makes it clear  that the kill team is not an exception and that killing [of civilians] is wide spread, as it has been in other US military engagements, collateral or otherwise. As the film conveys individual conscience is a luxury one cannot afford all the time and morality becomes an issue of priorities. Large proportion of the film are taken up by Dan Krauss recording judicial proceedings,  interviews with Adam  and his family and other members of the team. Krauss had been contracted by the defense counsel to record video material that could be used at the trial. THE KILL TEAM received the Tribeca Best Documentary Feature award.

Among two other documentaries of note were OUT OF PRINT by Vivienne Roumani and, HOW TO MAKE MONEY SELLING DRUGS by Matthew Cooke. Roumani’s production offers a careful consideration of the impact of new digital technologies on writing, publishing, and reading.  Experts report an apparent development of reading confined to the surface level and a concomitant decline of literacy and deep thinking. There is the significant problem of preserving electronically recorded print and visual imagery because the most recent digital technologies have a short life span, thus the collective digital memory is threatened. Books published in the 16th  century can still be read today  while current CD/DVDs  last only between 3-5 years and  hardware and  soft ware  becomes obsolete within a couple of years of their invention. Cooke’s controversial documentary provides through intensive interviews with former drug dealers on all levels instructions on making a living ranging from street dealing to working as a drug king pin earning millions a day. The global drug trade has reached now $400 billion and the profits made are in excess of $100 billion.  In the second part the film poses more significant issues which are frequently overlooked. Cooke makes a good case for understanding the war on drugs as a travesty. Large benefits are derived from the war by public and private agencies and havoc has been wrought upon poor minority communities, specifically Afro-American ones.   Federal funding of the war   has increased from $2.6 billion in 1986 to $23.4 billion in 2011.  The funding fueled the expansion of the correctional system required by new mandatory sentencing guidelines which resulted in a large number of convicted drug offenders serving long sentences. After 1980 drug arrests rose by 126% while other crime arrests rose by 26% only.  Conviction for drug offenses was the single biggest factor in the increase of Afro American prison inmates. In 1994 the war on drugs caused one million Americans to be arrested, by 2008 it jumped to 1.5 million. Police forces expanded; the largest federal grants were available for anti drug measures but not for other endeavors.  One of the consequences of the large scale investigation and arrest of presumed dealers and addicts was the impairment of basic civil liberties. Politicians from the democratic and republican parties embraced the war on drugs and anti crime platforms and were successful getting elected. The impact on low income mostly Afro American minority communities has been severe. Individuals from these communities tend to be over penalized for drug possession.  Being unemployed and under skilled they have frequently no access to jobs outside the drug trade. Lastly we seem to be moving towards the privatization of the correctional system, currently a $50 billion industry.

The Tribeca Film Festival certainly lived up to its reputation of presenting outstanding documentaries.

Iron Man 3 is the first film in what is known as Marvel Phase 2 which will include a string of other superhero films (including sequels for Captain America and Thor) that all lead up to The Avengers 2.   Iron Man 3 takes place following the events of The Avengers in which Tony Stark went through a wormhole to save the world.  In this film, Tony is experiencing difficulties since exiting that wormhole.  He has developed a case of insomnia and also has anxiety attacks.  Because Tony can’t sleep, he enthralls himself into his work, which causes the love of his life, Pepper Pots (played by Gwyneth Paltrow), to feel shut out.  On top of all of this, there is a new villain in town known as The Mandarin who is terrorizing the world.  Stark must battle his past, his inner demons, and use his intelligence to stop The Mandarin and save the world…again.

First off, Iron Man 3 is unlike any other previous Iron Man film.  This movie has a lot more drama than the previous movies but at the same time, it has a lot more comedy.  The Shane Black script worked perfectly with Robert Downey Jr.’s ego and brought big laughs.  Shane Black was also able to make Don Cheadle a more likable character.  That being said, I did have two big problems with Iron Man 3.  The first problem being that there really isn’t that much of Iron Man in this film.  For a majority of the movie, it is just Tony Stark using his intelligence to battle instead of using his suit.  The geek in me wanted more Iron Man and that was a disappointment.  Second, The Mandarin was extremely under-used.  Ben Kingsley played the character great, but without spoiling anything, the character was a bit of a letdown.  In the comics, The Mandarin is Tony Stark’s biggest nemesis but it didn’t feel that way in this film.  He was just another sub-par villain with a weak back-story.  However, all of this pays off with the film’s concluding fight scene.  This final battle was choreographed, shot, and edited perfectly and delivers nothing but jaw-dropping excitement.

As many problems as there are with Iron Man 3, it is still a good movie and a great start for summer movie season.  If you are able to turn your brain off and enjoy it for what it is, then you will definitely have fun with this movie.  If you are someone who likes to nitpick at every detail or someone who is a little too attached to the Iron Man comics, then you probably won’t enjoy this film.  In conclusion, Iron Man 3 has a great start, a polarizing mid-section, and an extremely entertaining conclusion.  It’s not as good as the first Iron Man film or The Avengers, but it is miles better than Iron Man 2.  Go out and see Iron Man 3 and celebrate the beginning of summer!

Jeff Nichols is a writer and director from Little Rock, Arkansas.  His feature film debut, “Shotgun Stories”, premiered at the 2007 Berlin International Film Festival.  His second feature, “Take Shelter”, premiered at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival and was part of Critics’ Week at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival, where it was awarded the Grand Prix. “Take Shelter” was ranked number one in FFT’s Top 10 for Sundance 2011. “Mud”, his most recent film, premiered in official competition at Cannes last May and is another outstanding effort.

The film stars Matthew McConaughey as a charismatic drifter  named Mud  in a coming of age, life-on-the river  tale which evokes the spirit of  “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn”. Mud’s charm and  braggadocio are seen through the perspective of a couple of 14 –year olds who discover him living in an abandoned boat nestled high in the branches of a tree, deposited there by a flood.  The sensitive, soft spoken Ellis(a wonderful, Tye Sheridan)   and his faithful, smart- ass friend named Neckbone(Jacob Lofland) are the two Arkansas teenagers. Mud needs their help first in securing food  and later in fixing the boat and re-connecting with his bi-polar and flirtatious girlfriend (an intense ReeseWitherspoon).

The film also stars  a staple of Jeff Nichols’s films—Michael Shannon,  in a small,  but significant role.  The story has a powerful driving force of a blood feud  and revenge  which drive the narrative and keep you unsure how it will all play out. Photographed with meticulous craftsmanship by Adam Stone, the river becomes a character in this tale of love and its vicissitudes. With its natural performances  and its sense of spontaneity, “Mud” is a small but surprising pleasure with all the original flavor of a classic motion picture. It is a must see for your viewing pleasure.

Freier Fall (Free Fall). 2013. Germany. Directed by Stephan Lacant

The longest running showcase for German Films in the United States, KINO!  featured from April 18 – 24 at the Museum of Modern Art award winning selections. They were chosen from the last edition of the Berlinale and other major festivals and provided an enlightening perspective on current creative film making in Germany.  Most of them depart from the standard track of storytelling. Staged for 35 years now KINO!  has programmed over the last years numerous films and served as an important vehicle ensuring upscale promotion and commercial release of German films in the United States. This included, but is not limited to ALLES AUF ZUCKER (Dani Levy), SOPHIE SCHOLL (Marc Rothemund), HANAMI (Doris Doerri), THE WHITE RIBBON (Michael Haneke),  SOUL KITCHEN (Fatih Akin), VISION (Margarethe von Trotta), THREE (Tom Twyker) and  YOUNG GOETHE IN LOVE (Philipp Stroelzl). The 2013 KINO! selection presented several films which garnered awards already such as OH BOY (Jan Ole Gerstner) and FORGET ME NOT (David Sieveking).

FREE FALL (Freier Fall) by Stephan Lacant, the opening night film at the Berlinale’s Perspective German Kino, is a superbly enacted portrait of the seemingly straight police officer Marc. He has a pregnant girl friend but starts an affair with another male officer prompted by an accidental encounter.  As a result his life goes into a free fall.  Rejected by his wife, family and most friends who cannot comprehend his new orientation he is increasingly isolated and estranged from his old social context, uncomfortable in the gay scene and utterly dejected when his lover leaves.  Lacant demonstrates how precarious identities are constructed, how they are prone to shatter and how difficult it is to rebuild them. As in the beginning scenes the film closes with Marc running again, leaving open what lies in the future.

Jan Ole Gerstner presents an offbeat story in OH BOY about a former student who becomes a drifter, aimlessly meandering through the gritty urban landscape of Berlin. Nico is impoverished and unemployed and no longer supported by his golf playing detached father who thinks he is as much of a failure as his mother was. His girlfriend has left him.  Between aimless talks with occasional few friends and strangers, fights and disputation not leading anywhere, he ends up in a bar listening to an old man who talks about the last 60 years which have been lost and his childhood.  He singles put the Kristallnacht when shards of glass made it impossible to ride his bike. When he collapses Nico brings him to the hospital but cannot ascertain the old man’s identity after his death. In the end, his desire for a cup of coffee throughout the story is finally met.

KALIFORNIA by Laura Mahlberg depicts an old man living by the sea in a caravan who decides on the spur of the moment to visit a friend in California. Having been disconnected from the outside world he is an accidental traveler, hitch hiking rides with strangers, encountering normal and odd people before arriving at the sea port. He does not really know how to relate to other people and follows their clues. Finally he takes a bus back to his caravan, moves his arm chair to the beach and peacefully watches the sea. He feels more at home in isolation.

Andreas Bolm presents with THE REVENANTS (Die Wiedergaenger) the most challenging film in the KINO! selection. His complex non-linear story moves between time, imagery and memory without any dialog or interaction between the principals, an aging hippy couple Ada and Volker living deep in the forest .Two musicians with down beat songs make brief appearances.  A running commentary is effectively used, presenting from time to time catastrophic radio news about an environmental catastrophe, poisoned food, and evacuations. A voice over relays the story of Ada and Volker, the loss and possible murder of their son Tom by young Fabian who is meandering through the forest. Long tracking shots, static camera angles, the silent passages, and penetrating nature imagery contribute to the foreboding, loss, and search for a safe home which the film conveys.

In David Sieveking’s feature length documentary FORGET ME NOT (Vergiss Mein Nicht), Sieveking provides an intimate sensitive portrait of his family coping with the Alzheimer’s disease his mother is suffering from. The father has become a full time care taker giving up his own life until help is hired, though reluctantly. Sieveking records how the mother is losing mastery of cognitive and behavioral skills and how members of the family have to adapt to the changes.  Frequently confused about their identities she fails to recognize the son and his father and progresses into self isolation. The constant attention her illness requires and the knowledge shared by those close to her that there is no cure or remedy for her passage into dementia create  stressful and seemingly insurmountable obstacles.  The film documents how the family accompanies her descent and provides a highly personalized and sensitive perspective on a disease that has become a significant health problem for the aging populations of advanced industrial societies.

Nico Summer presents with SILVI a woman at the end of her forties who is forced to redesign her life and relations after her husband abandons her. This leads her to blindfolded encounters with strangers interested in sex rather than her, exposure to alcohol and drugs, and experience with sadomasochism to name a few episodes. In her voiceover commentary Silvi describes what has gone wrong with her life, how she has to return to life after failing completely as a woman and comments on her need to overcome rejection and isolation. Yet, even after an episode with an apparently normal professional male who reveals  that he is attracted to bondage and being locked up in cabinets, Silvi does  not abandon her aspirations. At the end of the film she declares instead that she is open to new adventures.

Like the other films in the KINO! series SILVI presents a character and a story that is outside our taken for granted realities. The term normal no longer applies and there seems to be no firm center holding everything together and establishing the path for predictable developments.  The curators have programmed a rather appealing KINO! selection this year.

   Pain and Gain stars Mark Wahlberg, Dwayne Johnson, and Anthony Mackie as three body builders who want more out of their life.  All of them are behind on rent and bills but instead of trying to get an education, they are more obsessed with their physical image.  Mark Wahlberg’s character, Daniel Lugo, has an extremely rich client, Victor Kershaw (played by Tony Shalhoub), at his gym who as Lugo puts it, “Is a criminal prick who doesn’t deserve the money that he has.”  Lugo decides to come up with a scheme to kidnap Kershaw and have him sign over everything that he owns to the three body builders by torturing him.

The Michael Bay checklist is a list of things that you need to have in a Michael Bay film.  It’s essentially what makes his films all fluff and no substance.  Let’s go through the list for Pain and Gain shall we: Are there homophobic jokes or any other types of crude humor?  Check.  Are there any slow motion shots?  Check.  Is there an explosion?  Check.  Are there large breasted women who are models instead of actresses?  Check.  Is there a shot of a flowing American flag?  Check.  As stated before, even though Pain and Gain is technically a different genre than most Michael Bay films, it is still definitely a Michael Bay film.

The main problem with Pain and Gain besides that it’s extremely shallow, is that every character is unlikable.  The audience has no one to root for or connect with in this film.  Victor Kershaw is rude, racist, and doesn’t deserve his money but the gang of muscle bound freaks who rob him don’t deserve the money either.  They’re all incredibly dumb and the only thing they work at in life is fitness.  So who do you root for?  The antagonist or the lazy protagonists?  When you don’t like any of the characters, you don’t care what happens and if you don’t care, then it’s not worth watching.  The only redeeming quality of this movie is Dwayne Johnson.  You’d think it would be Mark Wahlberg but Wahlberg’s ego gets in the way of the plot and ends up being extremely annoying.  Johnson has shown that he can carry a movie.  Though I still didn’t care what happened to his character, he was the only one that tried to make me care.

   Pain and Gain is stuffed with so many genres that it feels bloated.  If it’s a comedy, it is the lowest form of comedy.  All of the jokes are either homophobic or racist or the joke is on someone’s size or appearance.  The entire joke of the film is how dumb the characters are and that it’s based on true events.  So if you’re trying to make a comedy based on idiotic actions, then go full comedy and don’t try to make the audience relate to the characters.  If this film is an action movie, then there isn’t enough action and if it’s a drama, then the action and comedy take away the seriousness of the film.  It’s as if Michael Bay took everything he loved and shoved it into a blender and made one sloppy movie.  Pain and Gain completely dumbs down to its audience and I find that insulting.  Skip this movie.  Michael Bay has enough money.

The festival presented independent productions by film makers who grew up in the post Soviet period and had limited funds. These productions can rarely be seen outside this festival, and are accessible only in some academic settings, select venues in the Ukraine and Western Europe and some internet platforms.  Screening productions at a New York festival should help the distribution efforts.

The films were selected from more than 100 submissions in addition to those handpicked by the festival organizers. Numerous shorts were derived from two group programs. The first is the Kiev based collective “Goodbye, Ukraine” which had completed by 2012 34 short films examining why close to 1.5 million Ukrainians had left their country since independence in 1991. Some of these films were screened in the 2012 edition of the Kinofest; the seven selected this year were US premiers.   The second group included young film makers from each of the 15 former Soviet republics. Each director recruited for the “15 Young by Young” program was charged to present a story from their country covering childhood and teenage experiences.  Some limited funding for the first project was obtained from Ukrainian sources, for the second project Western media organization including arte and some NGOs were sponsors.

Though most film makers from these areas are not well known outside their countries, some have presented their work at established film festivals such as Cannes, Clermont – Ferrand, Locarno, and Odessa. Maryna Vroda received the 2011 Cannes Short Film Palme d’Or award. It is certainly difficult to identify a dominant theme for these productions with a focus on the Ukraine.  Yet when a member of the audience stressed that these films were grim and depressing, my neighbor who apparently came from that country quipped “have her live in the Ukraine just for one year.” The  theme of the Kiev collective  “Goodbye, Ukraine” mirrors conditions in that country as emphasized by some speakers who suggested that the country is worse off than two years ago..  The current theme of the collective is different.

Stories presented were disturbing and enlightening. There was little romantic cinema or idyllic work situation shown, reminiscent of despised elements from the Soviet film making area. Rather neo-realistic, surreal elements, cinema noir stylistic devices (UKRAINIAN LESSONS), and black humor prevailed. In Valentyn Vasyanovych feature BUSINESS AS USUAL we follow the descent of a psychotherapist treating addicts. Realizing the fragile basis of his identity and precarious link to others he tries to make sense out of his life that has become meaningless. From having a wife, child, and residence he passes through numerous surreal experiences to end up disheveled and homeless in a cemetery looking at his image   on a grave stone.  Most of the films reflect the grim conditions and growing gulf between the rich and the poor of the Ukrainian society and in some documentaries several older people articulated that their life was better under Soviet rule. Corruption, violence and alcoholism were steady companions in these films ranging from old ladies and the police (THE PIE, Yuriy Kovalov) to drifting students killing spontaneously because they cannot control their impulses. (GAUDI, Aksynia Kurina). As in other developing countries, like Cambodia, we encounter young teenagers who work to support their families.  PIT NO. 8 by Marianna Kaat features the Sikanov family supported by 15 year old Yura who works in illegal coal pits in Donetsk.  He provides the income for his siblings in a dysfunctional family with an alcoholic mother and step father. The older sister is rarely working since there are no jobs in this decaying area. The family is registered by the authorities as living in unfavorable conditions.  Eventually the mother is stripped of parental rights; Yura is placed into a boarding school and his sister in an orphanage. For his generation, the first grown up in independent Ukraine there is no future.  Illegal pits are closed down; apparently the bribes for police were insufficient.

The feature length documentary HOW TO ESTABLISH A VODKA EMPIRE adds a lighter touch. The British film maker Daniel Edelstyn tracks down his Ukrainian heritage and discovers a Vodka distillery which he successfully revives thus providing some employment.  HOW THE COSSACKS FLEW INTO SPACE by Yevhen Matveiyenko moves corruption back into the center of attention. The craving for more cash is prompted by consumerism, the perceived need for a car, a larger refrigerator, a heater, etc.  The father is a medical salesman who faces dismissal because he has not shared bribes with his superior.  His young son steals households money, thus corruption has been passed on in the family.  Ruslan Batytskyy   offered in The UKRAINIAN LESSONS a fitting conclusion of the KinofestNYC program. The opening short film PIE was a comical surreal take on corrupt teenagers, police and the local mafia.  UKRAINIAN LESSONS, a work in progress, records in extreme neo realism sequences the fate of a beautiful young teacher who returns to a desolate decrepit mining town where buildings and mines encrusted with dirt are falling apart and the surroundings are devastated. We are faced with a surreal lunar landscape inhabited by few people living in run down houses and filthy flats. Here the inhabitants have ceased to communicate and only very few words are uttered at the end of the film in a dream like sequence. Interaction has degraded to the animalistic level and the veneer of civility has disappeared totally. There is only bleakness and industrial ruin, no living nature or any form of culture. The teacher falls in love with a young coal miner and provokes an incredible aggression by his fellow skin head hoodlum coal miners. Acting out their mute world they engage in rape and murder conveying the message that in this hellish town there is no space for beauty and communication.

I trust that the next edition of KinofestNYC maintains the quality shown this year.

THE ACT OF KILLING Joshua Oppenheimer, 2012, Denmark; Oppenheimer applies a unique documentary approach in his investigation of the murder of hundreds of thousands communists in Indonesia in the mid 1960s with Errol Morris and Werner Herzog serving as executive producers. As prompted by Oppenheimer the death squad leaders from local criminal gangs responsible for the killing in one region proudly re-enact their crimes dramatically as if playing in a movie.  They show little sense of remorse and gladly take the film makers to the places where they committed the killings.  The only exception seems to be Anwar a principal killer, now loving grandfather, whose past haunts him in his dreams  since the re-enactment of the horror made apparently his actions real again. The death squad leaders and their gangs still celebrate the genocide today in public events with their Pancasila Youth gangs   and are proud of the service provided to Indonesia by getting rid of the communists.  Senior government officials do attend these events. Members of the death readily demonstrate to the film makers the most effective ways of killing they invented and the torture techniques applied. They even go on national television to brag about their past activities. During the discussions they suggest that “God hates communists” and that they were more effective than the Nazis. They make no secret of the military hiring them and of the other criminal activities they were carrying out during the mass murders. Today they are running protection rackets and dispossess for real estate speculators with paramilitary units people from their land. To date there has been no prosecution of the genocidal crimes committed though they were clearly exposed. Oppenheimer’s film cannot be shown publicly in Indonesia but had private screenings there.

SOLDATE JEANETTE, Daniel Hoesl, 2012, Austria; Here we have a fascinating representation of the surreal shift of life styles of a woman starting as a high style luxury prone upper class socialite and becoming a farm hand in an isolated rural mountain setting. In her rapid downward slide she drops an expensive luxury purchase into the trash,  burns all her cash, works in a slaughter house,  feeds pigs, has an affair with a farmer and eventually takes off with his jeep destroying it. The feature has little dialogue and an attractive production quality yet Jeanette’s character development remains a mystery. We know what happened to her but not why, other than watching Jeanette’s perfect adaptation to whatever setting she becomes part of, a chameleon

JISEUL by O Muel, 2012, South Korea; This marvelously composed monochrome feature is set around a village on the Korean island of Jeju in 1948 which gets caught in the frenzy of anti communism. Ijssel is among the best films selected for the 2013 New Directors/New Films series.  The US army had ordered Korean troops to execute on sight inhabitants of the island as suspected armed civilians. The film records in austere minimalistic black and white tones the hunting and killing of the villagers and their attempts to escape. Jiseul impresses like a requiem given its narrative structure, pacing, subdued action by the civilians, villagers threatened by death maintain their composure through small talk and their survival in a dark cave. An amazing acting performance by the non-professional cast adds authenticity with the story evolving slowly in the setting of a wintery landscape. An estimated 25-30,000 civilian was killed.

LEONES   Jazmin Lopez, 2012, Argentina / France; Lopez seems to be presenting a riddle in this puzzling and entrancing film which features five young characters meandering aimlessly through Leones a labyrinth, a forest. Mostly without food and sleep they share their thoughts in an impromptu fashion. They are frequently unconnected and the film does not follow a clear narrative structure. We do get some clues, a tape recording of their  car trip that stops suddenly with the sound of a crash, a car wreck in the middle of the forest, silence prevailing over aborted fragments of dialogues, and an ending where the characters end up walking into the ocean.  What we see may be just a dreamscape or actions in the afterlife by victims of a deadly car accident, life as death, or the filmmaker’s attempt to disengage the audience from preconceptions and induce reflection.

ANTON’S RIGHT HERE,   Russia, Lyubov Arkus, 2012; This film debut for Arkus is a marvel of a documentary on the problems of taking care of an autistic individual. The production was recorded over six years against the background of a poorly functioning Russian mental health system where ware housing and drugging those diagnosed with mental problems is widespread.  As a Russian professional states, hell awaits those entering the public system.  The film makers provide here the counterweight since they are getting more and more involved in Anton’s fate and help him to survive the different phases of his life. His fate includes an initial period with his single mother who is dying of cancer, an isolated stay in a summer camp, being kicked out of an elite clinic since he cannot adapt, a six month stay in a village caring for the disabled which Anton is forced to leave due to behavioral problems because his care giver had left, subsequent incarceration and total isolation in mental institution, and eventual ‘illegal’ liberation from the hospital arranged by his film maker friends. He joins his father after the family and friends are exposed to the documentary material and lives with him in a house bought with the help of the film makers. Anton’s Right Here is an object lesson of the problems helping and overcoming obstacles. As a documentary the film is very effective since the film maker remains objective and authentic dealing with a very emotional issue in spite of her personal involvement.

STORIES WE TELL Sarah Polley, 2012, Canada; Polley presents a marvel of the social construction of realities in her quest to identify her biological father Interviewing members of her nuclear family and friends she records contradictory and conflicting notions as to what happened in the past.  Polley and the audience face the problem of differentiating between reality and truth the accounts represent. She supplants the statements with family home film and video footage presenting all principals. In the mostly sympathetic portrayals of her two fathers and her mother by professional actors the audience gets excellent insights into family dynamics, the construction of narratives and the lesson of Stories We Tell, truth is more powerful than fiction.

As in past editions the 2013 New Director / New Film series provided an excellent introduction to critically acclaimed new filmmakers.

What is not to love here? It’s about she-men in jail ruled over by Mousey, played to the hilt by the insanely charismatic Mexican superstar Kate del Castillo.

Raymond Saxx Jr. (Goran Visnjic) is a powerful Hollywood record producer who is arrested after a drug-infested party leaves his rock star client dead. After a blackout – he might have murdered his client – he is sent to K-11, the wing of L.A. County Jail reserved for gay and transgendered prisoners. Why? Well, it seems the Sheriff’s Deputy, Lt. Johnson (D.B. Sweeney), wants him there even though he’s not dressed as a girl or proclaims himself gay.

When Saxx finally stops vomiting and detoxes, he is faced with the hierarchical structure of the K-11 unit. Returning to K-11 is the Queen Bee, Mousey (del Castillo). This little spit-fire is all angry seductress, demanding her stuff: makeup, stripper heels and tiny mini-skirt. Mousey has returned to her lair and she catwalks through the aisles demanding heads will roll and punishments meted out.

Mousey is all attitude.

The unit is home to, among others, Butterfly (Portia Doubleday), a young transgender with problems, Detroit (Tommy ‘Tiny’ Lister) a child molester, Sledgehammer (Cameron B. Stewart), and Ben Shapiro (Jason Mewes), the Deputy Sheriff’s right-hand man and drug distributor.

While Visnjic plays it straight (perhaps he thought he was working on a HOSTEL franchise) and del Castillo chews the scenery (not only don’t you mind, you want a feature film on Mousey), the fault of K-11 falls on Sweeney who plays Johnson as a Christopher Walken parody on Vincent Price in HOUSE OF WAX with a Hitler hairdo and mustache. Was that necessary? Or, do we place the blame on K-11’s director, Jules Stewart (pictured), who may have kept ramping up the crazy in take after take. Let’s see the evil in action, not in hair and makeup. Sweeney’s over-emphasis on corny sadism swings the pendulum to comedy. All that is missing is Clint Eastwood’s growl and Tommy Lee Jones’ snarl.

Interesting fact: K-11 was filmed entirely in the Sybil Brand Institute for Women in Monterey Park, California.

I did learn quite a lot about K-11 and had to watch the film again since the review copy I got from Breaking Glass Pictures had a commentary by Stewart and producer Tom Wright. I’m fascinated by Jules Stewart. I don’t mind Stewart putting her son (Cameron Stewart) in a role, since he’s good and apparently well-suited to play Sledgehammer, but it was completely unnecessary for Stewart to have her daughter Kristen Stewart say a few lines of dialogue over the phone. Why couldn’t Jules get her daughter to play one of the transgender inmates?

After all, even though Kristen Stewart’s parents both worked behind the camera, her acting career began at the age of eight, after an agent saw her perform in her elementary school’s Christmas play. How convenient or did her parents arrange for a ticket to the play? After a year of auditioning, Stewart’s first role was a small nonspeaking part. Who took her to all the auditions for a year? Who did the driving and the parking? Who paid for the head shots? Who worked tirelessly hard for Kristen to become an actress? Who chaperoned her on film sets?

This begs the question: Does Kristen Stewart owe her mother anything?

Kristen’s Stewart’s mother speaks: “Jules Stewart Is Not Jealous Of Kristen. Currently, Jules is promoting her new film K-11, which she directed. However, in an interview with the LA Times, she sounded as if she might be jealous of her daughter. “It’s extremely frustrating for me, because she’s 22 years old and I’m almost 60,” Jules said in the interview. “In terms of life experience — hello! — I have it all over her. It’s not like I came out of nowhere.” In fact, Jules has been working in the movie business for 40 years, many of them as a script supervisor. http://hollywoodlife.com/2013/03/19/kristen-stewart-mom-fight-jules/

Victoria Alexander is a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association: www.bfca.org/ and the Las Vegas Film Critics Society: www.lvfcs.org/. Victoria’s weekly column, “The Devil’s Hammer,” is posted every Monday. http://www.fromthebalcony.com/editorials.php.

If you would like to be included on Victoria’s private distribution list for a weekly preview, just email her at masauu@aol.com. Victoria lives in Las Vegas, Nevada and answers every email. You can contact Victoria directly at masauu@aol.com.

Luke (Ryan Gosling) is a motorcycle stunt rider in a “circus-style” county fair traveling show. In a Cirque du Soliel type of circular cage, Luke, along with two other motorcyclists, go fast around the cage trying not to crash into each other. Luke is the star attraction.

In a stopover on the circuit in Schenectady, New York, Luke’s brief fling Romina (Eva Mendes) turns up. He gives her a ride home but she tells him she is living with someone. Later, stopping by her house, he sees that Romina has a year old son – his.

Since Luke has absolutely no savings, no clothes, and no possessions, his promise to take care of Romina and his son is absurd. When he is offered a daring way out of his financial Waterloo he takes it. Like Willie Sutton said, he goes “where the money is.”

Luke’s decision has consequences and is played out over 15 years. One person linked to Luke is brand new policeman Aaron Cross (Bradley Cooper). Aaron’s life is impacted by crossing paths with Luke.

It is impossible to continue summarizing the plot without running into spoilers. I’d like to highlight the work of Emory Cohen, who plays a young 16 year-old. Casting director Cindy Tolan did her job well. And I love the work of terrific character actor Ben Mendelsohn. His work in KILLING THEM SOFTLY was terrific!

Directed by Derek Cianfrance and co-written with Ben Coccio and Darius Marder, THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES has a haunting quality that gives it an unsettling, frenetic quality. Starring roles have no sanctified importance for Cianfrance. While Gosling has the drifter vibe down pat – even sporting a tattoo under his eye and amateur graffiti all over his body – his face expresses more than his necessity for dialogue. Cooper, on the other hand, has a role that makes a progression. And he admirably makes the transition. With SILVER LINING PLAYBOOK and now THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES, Cooper must now be recognized as a first class actor. We can forgive him THE HANGOVER 3 – he’s probably contractually obliged to do it.

There are no pure, blameless characters in Cianfrance’s worldview. Morality is flexible and self-interest is paramount.

This is the second time Ryan Gosling – who could be said to be Cianfrance’s alter-ego – has worked with Cianfrance. They made the highly original, riveting BLUE VALENTINE (2010).

Victoria Alexander is a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association: www.bfca.org/ and the Las Vegas Film Critics Society: www.lvfcs.org/. Victoria’s weekly column, “The Devil’s Hammer,” is posted every Monday. http://www.fromthebalcony.com/editorials.php.

If you would like to be included on Victoria’s private distribution list for a weekly preview, just email her at masauu@aol.com. Victoria lives in Las Vegas, Nevada and answers every email. You can contact Victoria directly at masauu@aol.com.

Simon (James McAvoy) is a fashionable star fine art auctioneer. He explains the high-tech security methods used by his auction house, Delancey’s of London, to protect their valuable objet d’arts. In this case, it is Goya’s ‘Witches in the Air’. As soon as Simon’s hammer goes down on the painting for over $20 million, thieves enter with machine guns and wearing masks. We watch as Simon follows the procedure for securing the painting. Hiding it away, Simon is accosted by bespoke-wearing Franck (Vincent Cassel) and hit on the head causing him a concussion. The painting is not in the satchel Franck takes from Simon.

Apparently, Simon is part of Franck’s crew and due to his gambling addiction, owes Franck a lot of money. So, when all else fails, Franck decides to use hypnosis to uncover Simon’s memory where he hid the painting. The hypnotherapist Simon chooses is Elizabeth Lamb (Rosario Dawson).

After Simon is released from the hospital you’d think his time would be filled with insurance agents, auction house investigators, the press, and wealthy art patrons, but he is free to go to daily sessions with Lamb. Giving Lamb a bogus reason for wanting hypnosis, Lamb quickly realizes it’s not about Simon forgetting where he lost his car keys. She wants to be an equal part of Franck’s and guarantees she will find the painting.

Things start to twist as Lamb becomes sexually involved with Simon. In the most talked about scene, before having sex with Simon, Lamb goes into the bathroom and we hear the sound of an electric razor. She walks out nude and completely shaven. When did Simon discuss his appreciation of hairless women? Is there an underlying sexual fetishism involved or, we are to assume, a purely aesthetic appreciation of life imitating art? There is a point here? What did I miss? (See drunkenstepfather.com for the screen shot.)

Male viewers are not interested in seeing actors showing full-frontal nudity; however, it is insulting that Dawson did it (as a gift to her at-that-time lover, director Danny Boyle?), but we never see McAvoy’s genitals. It’s sexist and cheats the audience. Why her and not him?

Why didn’t Boyle ask Cassel? I bet he would have been game.

It is quite rare for the star of a film – here it is McAvoy – to allow the second lead a better sexual scene or to display a more dynamic screen presence. But Cassel (to be fair, I am a huge fan of Cassel and has Netflixed all his foreign movies) has his own sex scene with Dawson and, and to use the pompous movie term, a more complex “character arc”. Up against Cassel’s powerful image on screen and Franck’s hard-bitten crew, McAvoy’s slight physique is a distraction. He is overwhelmed by Dawson’s hungry-sex look and Cassel’s devastating appeal. There is nothing McAvoy does to “foretell” what will come. Simon appears to be a good guy and even when we find out he is part of Franck’s crew, his true nature as a degenerate gambler and a clever schemer is never even hinted at.

You understand why Lamb goes for Franck.

If I had one other complaint about TRANCE, it’s that there is too much of Lamb’s babbling on during her hypnosis sessions. I didn’t fall into a meditative state, I got agitated. Movies are principally a visual medium, so I always say, “too many words”.

Show me, don’t tell me.

But then, the story twists again and becomes another movie. Yes, it is all cleverly tied up again but it is only a second viewing that will tell if there were clues and foreshadowing for the audience. Nevertheless, could anyone imagine this actually happening?

Vincent Cassel’s fantastic wife, actress Monica Bellucci (who didn’t see her in Gaspar Noe’s 2002 film IRREVERSIBLE alongside Cassel?), recently made the following comments in an interview, regarding her marriage to Cassel. As a public service to Cassel’s fans, I submit the following excerpt:

Monica Bellucci wouldn’t mind her husband being unfaithful if they were apart for a while. The 46-year-old actress – who has daughters Deva, six, and 10-month-old Leonie with spouse Vincent Cassel – values respect and loyalty more in a relationship than fidelity.

She said: “Passion you can feel for the worst man you ever met. But that has nothing to do with a deeper partnership. In such a one, passion stays, but more important is confidence, respect, knowing a man is not just loyal in a sex way, but that they will be there for you. That is more important than just fidelity.”

“It would be ridiculous to ask [fidelity] of him if I hadn’t been there for two months. You can’t ask such things as who has he been seeing, what has he been up to? It is more respectful and realistic to take the view that you’ll be with me when I see you.”

Victoria Alexander is a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association: www.bfca.org/ and the Las Vegas Film Critics Society: www.lvfcs.org/. Victoria’s weekly column, “The Devil’s Hammer,” is posted every Monday. http://www.fromthebalcony.com/editorials.php.

If you would like to be included on Victoria’s private distribution list for a weekly preview, just email her at masauu@aol.com. Victoria lives in Las Vegas, Nevada and answers every email. You can contact Victoria directly at masauu@aol.com.

In the late 1940s, all of America’s favorite baseball players were returning from the war.  However, the Jim Crow laws were still in effect and everything was divided.  African Americans were not allowed to use the same bathrooms as white folk, they couldn’t drink from the same water fountains, they couldn’t ride on the front of the bus, and they certainly couldn’t play on the same baseball team as white Americans.  The executive of the Brooklyn Dodgers, Branch Rickey, decides that he wants to do whatever it takes to win a World Series.  He knows that there are a ton of talented African American baseball players and he wants one of them to play for his team.  He finds Jackie Robinson and gives him the chance to play for the Brooklyn Dodgers.  A ton of people are offended by the idea of a black man playing “white” baseball but Rickey pursues with his idea.  He explains to Robinson that in order to be accepted, he must have the guts to not fight back when anyone tries to egg him on and instead play the game better than anyone can imagine.  Robinson must push through the struggles he is facing and ignore the extreme hatred that people feel towards him in order to become an American legend and show the world that if a person has the talent, they deserve a shot.

As stated before, the first half of the film is not nearly as good as the second half.  The problem with the first half is that the film comes off as a little cheesy.  The situation that Robinson is going through shouldn’t be taken as light-hearted.  Instead, there are a lot of jokes and a ton of comical come back remarks.  In the first half, anyone that is racist towards Robinson isn’t taken seriously and is seen as just some silly red-neck.  There is very little drama or challenge for Robinson.  In fact, they make Robinson look like a super hero with absolutely no weakness.  Little gets under his skin, he always steals a base, and he always hits a home run.  It isn’t until Robinson is in the big leagues that the director finally wakes up and the film becomes about something more than a really good baseball player.  Here, Robinson shows emotion.  We finally see that he isn’t perfect.  He starts making mistakes when folks are jeering at him.  We see that there is an inner battle in Robinson where he wants to be violent but he knows that if he does that, he loses and people will say that he really didn’t belong there.  This part of film is both shot and directed extremely well.  When the film is directed with emotion and purpose, the film has emotion and purpose.

The acting in 42 is marvelous.  Chadwick Boseman plays Jackie Robinson perfectly.  I haven’t seen any of Boseman’s previous work but I have a feeling that after this performance, we will see the actor in a lot more roles.  His performance allows the audience to understand Jackie Robinson and suffer with him.  Many may think that what Robinson did was easy because all he had to do was play baseball but Boseman shows how difficult it would have been to have all of this anger built up inside of him but not retaliate.  As good as Boseman was though, the true star of 42 was Harrison Ford as the team executive Branch Rickey.  I have never seen Ford play a character like this.  Rickey is religious but at the same time explosive and frustrated with how Robinson is treated.  Ford delivers one of the best scenes in the film when his character reveals the true meaning of why he signed Robinson to the Dodgers.

   42 is a movie that I think everyone should see.  While the start is a little eye-rolling, there ends up being a big emotional payoff.  The entire film has a theme and message of acceptance that a lot of people in this world still don’t understand.  Jackie Robinson was more than a baseball player and to this day he will constantly be a symbol of unity.  42 has respectable writing and sound directing and even if you aren’t a fan of drama, there is still enough impressive baseball action for anyone to enjoy.  I for one am still disgusted by how much profiling and discrimination there still is in the world.  Not just with race, but with sexual orientation, disabilities, etc.  It’s nice to see a movie that fights to end just that.

Director Sally Potter (“Orlando”) makes an emotionally engaging coming of age story about two babies being born in London in the same fateful year of 1945. Advance 17 years to 1962, when Ginger (Elle Fanning) and Rosa (Alicia Englert, daughter of Jane Campion) best friends since childhood are living in the shadow of the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis. The girls are growing up and begin to explore the world around them. Ginger, taking a cue from her pacifist writer father, Roland, (Alessandro Nivola) throws herself into the protest movement. Her best friend, Rosa, secretly begins an affair with Ginger’s father who is in a failing marriage with wife Nat (Christina Hendricks).

Potter puts the girls through a series of amusing situations. The one that is most poignant is when Ginger stumbles upon evidence that her dad and Rosa are being intimate. The production values are first rate and Robbie Ryan’s lensing is superlative. On the weak side, some of the more interesting subplots such as Ginger’s interest in a fellow protester seem to reach dead ends when their development could have added a little more complexity to the story. But what makes this film worth seeing is the spectacular performance from Elle Fanning. She is able to express despair, amusement, abandon, existentialism, and spiritual growth with an honesty which is remarkable for such a young actress.

   G.I. Joe: Retaliation is the sequel to 2009 Oscar winning classic (just kidding) G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.  Now just to warn you, you do not need to see The Rise of Cobra before you see Retaliation.  First off, a very brief synopsis of how the The Rise of Cobra ended is given during the intro to Retaliation.  Secondly, Retaliation was written so that any person watching it can understand what’s going on.  Literally anyone.  The plot of Retaliation is very basic to the point where I was wondering if it was written by fifth graders who wanted to make a G.I. Joe movie.  Basically, the president of the U.S. is not really the president.  He is a member of the evil organization known as Cobra, but disguised as the president.  His first act is to destroy the G.I. Joes and convince the American people that they were traitors.  The surviving members of the Joes, including Roadblock (played by Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson) must now form a plan to retaliate and stop Cobra before their next evil act of launching a device that’s more powerful than a nuclear weapon.  Pretty dumb right?

As mentioned before, Retaliation is riddled with poor writing and pathetic one-liners.  Here’s an example: Cobra Commander asks Zartan (the man disguised as the president) how he’s treating the real president.  Zartan’s response is, “I don’t know why they call it water boarding.  I never get bored.”  Cue the rim-shot sound effect.  Seriously, everyone in the theatre groaned after that line and many other lines in the movie.  One major problem I had with the script, however, was the addition of the original G.I. Joe (played by Bruce Willis).  They had the chance to create an awesome character who could contribute to the film but Bruce Willis doesn’t do anything.  He fires his gun twice and one of those times is seen in the trailer.  Willis is in the film for a very short time (maybe ten minutes) and his character has no substance or meaning.  The only reason Bruce Willis is in this film is because his name is Bruce Willis and he provides star power.

The writing for G.I. Joe: Retaliation is bad but the directing is worse.  This film was directed by Jon M. Chu who’s previous directing credentials include Step Up 2: The Streets, Step Up 3D, and Justin Bieber: Never Say Never.  Who’s idea was it to have this guy direct an action movie?  Well Chu has seen enough action movies to throw in all the clichés such as having Dwayne Johnson walk forward and don’t look back as an explosion is occurring because as Will Ferrell says, “Cool guys don’t look at explosions.”  There is also a very large over-use of slow motion shots done in this film.  The movie would probably be thirty minutes shorter if they played all the slow motion shots at regular speed.  The acting in Retaliation is atrocious.  Except for Dwayne Johnson, every actor looks like they are reading their lines of a cue card.  Johnson is the only one who is trying to earn his paycheck but he can only do so much.  The last thing that I blame the director on, is the reason this movie is so boring.  I can accept poor writing, bad acting, and even over-done clichés as long as the movie is fun to watch.  This is the rare example where a movie knows that it’s bad but has fun with it and goes over the top with really good action.  This movie is far too safe to even come close to that level of fun action.  There is no swearing and no blood.  People die but you don’t see anything.  I’m actually surprised that this is PG-13 because it gets very close to PG level violence.  There are minimal explosions and almost every fight is a long, drawn out scene where you see bullets fired that don’t hit anything or swords clashing against each other over and over.  I’m going to say that G.I. Joe: Retaliation is a skip it.  I wouldn’t even recommend taking your kids because it’s not even flashy enough for them to be entertained.  I’m sorry to inform that G.I. Joe: Retaliation is a boring and forgettable movie but now you know.  And knowing is half the battle (I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist).

Director /writer Harmony Korine (“Kids”, “Gummo”) makes a feature film that transcends realism about college girls who wish to escape the boredom of their “Spring Break”. The four young women-Faith (Selena Gomez), Candy (Vanessa Hudgens), Brit (Ashley Benson), Cotty (Rachel Korine-the director’s wife)-go on a psychotic rampage that starts with robbery and continues into the realm of sexualized violence. “I wanted this film to feel like a fever dream, where you are dancing in and out of logic”, Korine told Filmmaker Magazine And, in that regard, the film succeeds as a surreal fantasy. But,  its real surprise is that it stars two graduates of the Disney Channel machine: Selena Gomez and Vanessa Hudgens as bikini –clad, lawbreaking girls, in their early 20s, gone wild. For the two this film will change-up their acting career trajectory for good.

The journey to the Mecca of Spring Break destinations, St. Petersburg, Florida, leads them to jail and eventual release to a drug dealer and gun- toting, corn-rowed gangster  named Alien(James Franco). who is pitch perfect in bejeweled teeth and a Southern hip-hop drawl. {based on performance artist Riff Raff aka Jody Highroller}.

Faith returns home but the other girls are seduced by Alien and join him on a robbery spree that ends in a dance and sexual tryst with the accompaniment of Britney Spears’ “Everytime”. The soundtrack is a blend of a young electronic musician named Skrillex and drummer composer Cliff Martinez, who recently scored “Drive” (2011).  It works remarkably well and makes the movie feel often like a long-form music video.  Also, I would be remiss if I did not praise the slow motion 35mm by DP Benoit Debie which splashes color and kinetics in a sensory pleasing manner as the orgiastic activities unspool on the screen.

“Spring Breakers” updates the evolution of the fallen teen idol for the 21st Century and depending upon its success at the box office could break Harmony Korine out of his esoteric indie niche and into the big time.  But don’t count on it.

Numerous panels analyzed under the appropriate HOW THEY DID IT moniker issues as diverse and topical as the discovery of new cinema, funding for indie film makers, sales approaches, and transmedia story telling platforms.  For new and aspiring film makers, experts certainly provided important and pragmatic insights.  In the panel ‘Show Me The Money’ practitioners offered a detailed review and discussion of new fund raising avenues via tax credits, crowd funding, and equity support, but also emphasized the need for being innovative, having an excellent script and networking. In the special event section STAND ALONE film makers benefited in one-on-one interviews from the experience of Harry Belafonte and Michael Shannon.

The First Time Fest certainly has delivered on its promise to discover new original film makers from all over the world, to facilitate the distribution of their productions and to provide them with an effective festival learning environment. More importantly, the festival has embraced innovative programming exemplary policies novel to the festival trade. To begin with, the Grand Prize Winner of the First Time Fest, SAL (Chile/Argentine) by Diego Rougier received  guaranteed distribution by the well established Cinema Libre Studio company in domestic and international markets.  There were seven other awards for outstanding acting, writing, editing, etc but all other 11 finalists will receive expert advice on the marketing of their films and a one year membership in Players Club. As noted, panels and individual presentations established a superb learning context for the filmmakers as did the judging process. Each film maker was in the hot seat right after the presentation of his/her film and exposed to questions from members of the jury and the audience. Another new element of the First Time Fest was the fifth member of the jury, the audience which rated all films.

As to the networking element, very few new international new film makers, even if they are in the official festival program have at a festival the opportunity to meet and discuss their work with well established directors and industry executives. The First Time Fest offered that.  Apart from the luminaries and directors mentioned already insights were available from Martin Scorsese who presented the First John Huston Award for Outstanding Achievement in Cinema to Darren Aronofsky.  Among the others were  Philip  Seymour Hoffman,  Ellen Burstyn, Melvin van Peebles, Tony Bennett,  Hal Hartley, Christine Vachon, Gay Talese and Jenny Lumet to name but a few.

Sure there were problems for the festival which relied on private funding.  The biggest according to Johanna Bennett was the lack of sponsorship and underwriting which resulted in severe understaffing and not being able to provide transport and lodging to the competition film makers. Yet as she stressed they were surprised   by  “the intensely positive reaction to the experience of FTF by the Filmmakers both the competition Filmmakers and the First Exposure Filmmakers …the strong reaction to the basic idea of FTE  …and the difference to other industry events“. That recognition came as “a kind of shock”.

Credit for the innovation and ingenuity certainly goes to the co-founders of First Time Fest Johanna Bennett and Many Ward and their collaborators Mitch Levine the producer of the festival and its programmer David Schwartz. There is no other festival which matches the programming and learning approach of the First Time Fest and its close ties to established and emerging cinema artists. The unique First Time Fest model will be difficult to follow and one wonders how the second edition in 2014 can improve on the first. But the co-founder and collaborators may amaze us again.

Claus Mueller           How many submissions did you get for the Panorama this year?

Wieland Speck         About 3.500 with overlaps to other sections of the berlinale, for example 2/3rd of the competition films and many from other sections

CM      I understand you had 6000 submissions all together for the 2013 Berlin Film Festival

WS      Actually over 7000 total

CM      If you have that many films submitted in addition to those you and the other programmers select at film festivals, how do you establish your final program?

WS      For the Panorama about 25 people are involved assembling a program that I watch; this includes the ten who decide the final selection, who also do the final competition selection with Dieter Kosslick [Director of the Berlinale]. As you know I work for the competition in the first place and have built up in the 80s and 90s the network of delegates which are part of this process.

CM      Including pre-selections you have only 25 people involved going through 3.500 productions.  How do you do justice to all these productions?

WS      That is not possible if I use the term justice. That applies if I were to watch all of them, but even that will not work since I am not the judge but the programmer; the curator. Let me put it this way; I could do two programs of good films that would work in Berlin, one program with 100 productions with good productions and another one. I feel sorry for the many films we cannot place in the program, for their film makers and ourselves.

CM      Given the growing number of submissions, Dieter Kosslick mentioned several years ago that very good films can fall between the cracks [of the selection process].

WS      Well that is possible. On the other hand not only has the number of films quadrupled over the last 15 years, but also the number of festivals has increased tremendously.

CM      Bruno Chatelin lists more than 6000 festivals in his comprehensive data base. There are at least several thousand more too small or specialized to attract attention.

WS      Exactly. So film makers have more opportunities. It does not mean that every festival has only quality films. I cannot show all the quality films I find. Still many films find their way through the whole jungle into cinemas.

CM      Well, some film festivals are set up for other reasons. You attend and cannot find outstanding films. But film makers have submitted their films and can now report back to their funders, dentists or relatives, that they have been selected.

WS      Well that is true

CM      Out of the 52 films shown in the Panorama you had 29 world premiers. How many of those were handpicked ahead of time, selected at other festivals or identified before they entered the festival circuit?

WS      Not many.  Rather the films picked earlier are probably not world premieres. I have a couple of films from Sundance, a natural choice since our schedules are so close  and two to four films from Toronto. These are films which I feel the Berlin audience needs to see as well as the European buyers who do not attend Toronto. They are films which naturally do not end up at the American Film Market.  It is a question how many films have to be totally fresh for the market. If ten of my 52 films already had some exposure that is fine since the market still has to chew on forty.

CM      Did you detect this year any new themes or trends with respect to the Panorama and the Teddys?

WS      In general for the Panorama the eternal theme of sexuality plays a big role but that’s no surprise. But the way how film makers look at sexuality this year is interesting insofar as everyone seems to have taken it a step further. The observations have become more experimental. Experimental not in the sense of experimental filmmaking but in the exploration of sexuality, not only using the conventional ideas everyone has;  you do not have to show the sex act since we all know how a sex act works. This certainly holds for the Panorama. There are many films this year which explore heterosexuality in a fresher way than in the past.. Actually it is interesting that the heterosexual view of sexuality is fresher and the view of homosexuality is more mature this year. This is certainly a shift.

CM      We observe at the festival and market an increase in independent productions and participation of more independent film makers.  What accounts for it?

WS      It is definitely a sign of the times. We travel all over the world and we bring back some sort of new Zeitgeist stream of  the past year which often is an indicator of what is happening in the commercial world a year later. That the American independents are back is of course a great joy for us.  Their productions were a major leg of our programs through the mid nineties. Then there was a decline of innovative American independent cinema and we had only one or two American fiction films, though still lots of documentaries. Now American fiction is back with a fresh approach going from extremes like UPSTREAM COLOR [Shane Carruth] to DON JOHN’S ADDICTION [Joseph Gordon-Levitt] and everything in between such as CONCUSSION [Stacie Passon].

CM      Yet there seems to be some sort of paradox. When I interviewed Beki Probst [Director of the European Film Market] she spoke about the enlargement of the market. Without abandoning the traditional art house and independent tracks the market seems to be expanding into a more commercial orientation as indicated by the Weinstein Company’s acquisitions. As reported in the trades the independent were not doing that well at the market. What accounts for that?

WS      That’s not a contradiction.  Actually it is disappointing since I want the independent films that we rave about to find an audience. Therefore we need buyers, but we know that the market is conservative and that it takes time for the market to realize what is going on. If the [buyer’s] funds are restricted they have to play it safe and that means a conservative approach.

CM      Due to economic constraints?

WS      Absolutely. The money has a different taste this year. It really depends on how we can seduce the buyer to pay up. We started this year with a new look on American independents, next year  the buyers will have understood because independent films  will win  awards  during the next three days. Also keep in mind that it is not too late since many deals are made after the festival and market have closed down.

CM      What about digitization?

WS      Three years ago everything was 35 millimeter and today we say thank God everything is DCP [Digital Cinema Package]. So we go with the flow. We cannot control or manipulate that development.

CM      Digitization also entails the constant creation of new platforms of distribution. What is the impact of the new distribution possibilities?

WS      It will have an impact but this is where we are conservative waiting to see what the market does. We have to observe and adjust ourselves. Certainly we will not assume a front runner position.

CM      There is a possible problem with digital recording, the instant capture of reality.  One could suggest that digital cinema lends itself to become less reflexive than the traditional film making approach. Any comments on that proposition?

WS      Interesting theory.  This is a Zeitgeist phenomenon rather than a technical one. Of course having everything everywhere at any time changes how we perceive and receive information or enjoyment or whatever. I see this in a much wider context.  Of course we know that young people flip quickly through film history and see bits and pieces when they talk ablaut Renoir. We know they have not necessarily seen the films [they discuss].

CM      Well I do wonder sometimes what happened to reflexive film making.

WS      I know what you mean. That’s why we need to have a grasp of history to understand where we are and where we want to go. That’s why we show old films to bring in the idea of links to the past which are vivid in what we are making today, just look at the documentary   [by Sandra Pechtel] THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER on Roland Klick, the hottest guy [director of numerous features in the 70’s and 80’s] who was placed under the carpet afterwards. We do that kind of work.

CM      When you look at the Forum you have the Expanded Forum entering the art sphere. At the Berlinale, Dieter Kosslick is adding new components each year and the EFM is enlarging into the commercial area. What about the Panorama?

WS      Look I have an audience I can rely on which I am very thankful for, an audience that exactly goes for the films we show It’s an incredible strength I cannot value highly enough.  Also Panorama is always feeding the art house core. This core will remain my target and I will strengthen it as long as I live. When I look at the cinemas of Berlin and at the audience they serve I know these are the cinemas I love; cinemas that need the films I bring. We have a healthy situation which I try to keep.

CM      Your emphasis on theatres conveys that you are not so much concerned with the impact of new platforms, such as VOD or other streaming sources?

WS      Not really, television did not kill cinema, VHS did not do it either though it was bigger. You have the physical element of going to the movies, the social aspect of attending film or coming to a festival, which should not be underestimated.  Soon people have will have enough from the thousands of friends they have on face book. New opportunities will come. Congregation of human beings in the flesh cannot be replaced.

CM      To return to television, Dieter Kosslick suggested that high quality television programs by established film makers could become a section of the berlinale. Any comments?

WS      It is a new take mentioning it. It is not a new take doing it. We have in the US a new tendency among high caliber mavericks, critics and cinephiles who rave about TV series. We could not follow in Europe much down that line since our television has always been much better than American TV.  If there is something I like I would support it but I am not going down that route. You have great film makers and great stars [from prior years] that pop up today on television. This is actually a way for us to follow our film makers through their careers.

CM      Do you see any changes for the Panorama next year?

W S     Not at all… I am surrounded by people who invent and re-invent themselves all the time. I will continue feeding the market with the films that they expect  and will do the same for my audience…. As long as that works and my intuition is good I will continue what I am doing.

CM      Thank you for your comments.

Jordan Turner (Halle Berry) is a 911 operator in L.A. This 911 center is called “The Hive” and the degree of technological skill displayed is reassuring. Let’s hope L.A.’s “The Hive” is the norm.

Whichever operator picks up a 911 call is random and when Jordan gets a frightened teenager sobbing there is a prowler outside her house, Jordan attempts to help the girl as the man enters the house and follows her upstairs. Jordan speaks to the prowler but is unable to save the girl’s life.    

Jordan is guilt-ridden since she had promised to help the girl to safety. Returning to her job as an instructor, Jordan takes over when a new operator takes a call from a teenager, Casey (Abigail Breslin), being held in the trunk of a car.

Casey had been at the mall and abducted by a man, Richard Foster (Michael Eklund), we eventually get to know well.

Jordan has some terrific strategies for Casey and most of them work until Alan Denado (Michael Imperioli) signals Foster off the road. White paint is streaming out of his trunk. Denado becomes suspicious but does not call 911. By this time, we are as terrified as Casey since Foster is freaking out. But Foster, who up until now seems to have been an ordinary husband and father, is totally losing it.

Being stopped and questioned forces Foster to act impulsively. We are as shocked as Casey as things unfold.

With Jordan at the helm and her boyfriend Paul Phillips (Morris Chestnut) a L.A. police officer, it seems that finding where Foster has taken Casey is going to happen due to technology. But then the screenplay goes stupid – or does it? Jordan then proceeds to do everything that stupid people do in horror movies. You know what I’m talking about: Like going down the basement stairs without putting on a light. Or when American girls think going to a Slovakian hostel sounds like fun.

Typically, when faced with a deranged, intestine-hurling killer, the next sacrificial victim throws the gun away deciding instead to use “harsh language”.*

The third act takes Jordan directly into the action and she is dumb. Was she doing whippets in “The Hives” Quiet Room? This is where I say ‘she deserves whatever she gets’. I’m on the side of the killer now.

As the tension builds and Foster is in his own private Crazytown, we get caught up in the thriller and his reasons. And then the movie ends absolutely satisfying because Casey is no dummy.

Breslin has the tough role of being essentially a screaming, crying victim stuck in the truck of a car. Eklund is perfect, giving Foster an it’s-all-going-wrong sweating desperation.

Berry is absolutely engaging and emotionally present. Portraying an average, working black woman in L.A., I liked her lack of overdone hair and makeup. But her hairstyle wig is distracting. But I forgive her that. Berry is coming into a very creative period and THE CALL is quite the satisfying thriller.

*From ALIENS:

Gorman: Apone! Look… we can’t have any firing in there. I, uh… I want you to collect magazines from everybody.
Hudson: Is he fuckin’ crazy?
Frost: What the hell are we supposed to use man? Harsh language?

Victoria Alexander is a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association: www.bfca.org/ and the Las Vegas Film Critics Society: www.lvfcs.org/. Victoria’s weekly column, “The Devil’s Hammer,” is posted every Monday. http://www.fromthebalcony.com/editorials.php.

If you would like to be included on Victoria’s private distribution list for a weekly preview, just email her at masauu@aol.com. Victoria lives in Las Vegas, Nevada and answers every email. You can contact Victoria directly at masauu@aol.com.

Claus Mueller           Variety had the headline Big Bang Theory about the European Film Market basically stating that you are getting into big business selling top priced productions as acquired by e.g. the Weinstein Company.  Is that an expansion of the market or does it mean the market moves away for its original mission and younger days with its focus on independent  and art  house productions?

Beki Probst    Let me put it this way. We started as a smaller market, and this small market was art house oriented. Over the years when you look back after moving twice we came here [to the Martin Gropius Bau] and we set up a second location at the Marriott reflecting growing demand. Without getting into reasons for that demand, we know it was prompted by a change of the calendar of the markets.  When you enlarge you are also attracting different types of companies. Those companies are different from those we used to have in the beginning.  They are also bringing different films. I look at it as an enlargement of the market.

CM      You are getting bigger each year programming more films. The same holds true for the festival, though Dieter Kosslick always maintains that there is an end to the festival’s growth. How will you cope in the future when more companies approach you to get space?

BP       We cope with it every year. Take the Marriott, I am not a marketing chief of that hotel but I have to say the Marriott has been a very good choice for us. The problem here is that you do not move out of the Potsdamer Platz area when you enlarge. Berlin is a big city offering space further out. The main thing is to stay here. After we decided to have a second location we looked around and the most suitable venue was the Marriott, given the short distance and our shuttle. The situation at the Marriott is different from our location at the Museum [the Martin Gropius Bau]. While we are here the Museum continued with its exhibitions it also has rooms we cannot use. Even though the director of the museum gave us last year the second floor which we use for the American independents.  Still the Marriott is very flexible. Even for 2014 they are planning to have more suites for us.

CM      Thus you see no problems with the expansion since space will be available?

BP       But when we talk about the market screening it is another story. We have also enlarged and are now present with our screenings at different festival, hotel and museum locations but we need to expand further. We have doubled the number of shuttles to ten to facilitate access.  But we do not have crystal ball and do not know how the future looks like.  We are in a financial crisis and what are going to be the effects long or short terms?

CM      Let me ask you a question tied to it.  There was an article about the American Film Market written by one of their participants suggesting that according to some data the European Film Market is now bigger than AFM. Is that correct?

BP       I really can’t say and we would need data. But the American Film Market is only a market. We are part of the Berlin Film Festival and we are getting a lot of screenings and films from the different festival sections.

CM      A follow up question. The same writer maintains that the EFM is the most expensive market to attend. Correct?

BP      Not really. We have a complete tableau of price comparisons and we are not the most expensive. I am going to Cannes and AFM and I know the hotel prices. The screening prices may be different. Let me tell you why.  When you are here you may have an office at the Ritz Carlton or at the Hyatt or the Maritime, which means outside of our two locations.  Well as distinct from the AFM these people [at those hotels] can get accredited at the EFM and can arrange for screenings. We give them the possibility of being listed in the catalog but they have to pay more because they take advantage of the infrastructure of the EFM.

CM      Is the European Film Market self-sustaining? Do you generate sufficient income through the market so there is no need for subsidies from the festival at large or do you subsidize it  [generate income for the festival]

BP       You really can’t say that. A market like ours really has to keep it up. We have to invest constantly and these investments are rather high given the size of the market. Our rent here [at the Walter Gropius] is very high, we have to support the technical side, all that digitization, and last but not least you have the website which we have to support requiring [more funds] next year since things are changing very quickly and we have to keep pace with it.

CM      Has the shift to digital media and uses become a problem for the market?

BP       Of course. Take the screening problem.  In the past we programmed 35 mm and may be some 16mm films. Today we are facing multiple digital formats such as blue ray, HD DVD, digicam, and so on we need to accommodate

CM      Apart from the technology issues, what do you detect in terms of new themes?

BP       What you can see here and in general is that films today reflect the preoccupation of people with the world they are living in wars, etc. On the other hand you have the video games [impacting people and the productions]

CM      If you look at the audience served by the market, has there been a change in the composition with respect to buyers, sellers and the other groups with journalists etc?

BP       Bit difficult to say since there is a constant change of companies attending. You certainly have an influx of people who are interested and follow the new distribution modes, DVD, internet etc to see what can be programmed and acquire what they need.

CM      Thus the coming into being of new platforms generates more demands?

BP       Correct

CM      In that context do you observe an increase in pre-sales compared to prior years?

BP       Berlin has been very much about pre-sales specifically over the last years. That is logical since we are in February and thus the first film market. Lots of projects are in pre-production, production or post-production and you certainly take advantage of the large number of people here to show what is in the pipe line.

CM      Apart from the important link of EFM to the festival are there any other characteristics of EFM that makes it so attractive>

BP       Difficult to answer. But Berlin is most attractive, it has become a hype, if you talk to companies, American or otherwise, they love the ambiance of Berlin. and lastly we are the first market of the year and you want to be part of it..

CM      What is also attractive about EFM are the social face to face interactions of people as distinct from markets which rely more on technologies for communication .

BP      Certainly; why go to a market if the new technologies do not require your presence.  But the new technologies do not make up for personal relations and interactions. I may be old fashioned but I strongly believe in personal contacts and human relations

CM      You are right.  Uses of the so-called social media have dramatically reduced personal interactions, thus there is a systemic communications problem. In addition we observe in other areas a steady increase in visual media consumption which generates more business for the market.  Do you plan any changes for the 2014 market?

BP         Each year we do a survey at the end of the market. The results are very useful including the criticism since they lead to improvements, no one is perfect. Once we have collected the necessary data we will decide on any changes and develop strategies for the next market.

CM.     Thank you for your reflections.

Claus Mueller           What are the most significant innovations this year?

Dieter Kosslick         The native program [indigenous cinema], a  program called residency with filmmakers from all over the world to stay with us for six months and we ensure that their scripts will be ready and financed, and the enlargement of our market now also providing space in the Marriott and the Ritz Hotels

CM      According to Beki Probst there should be no problem expanding the market space in the future.

DK      We will expand the market. But to go back to innovations, we screened for the first time an international television series TOP OF THE LAKE with Jane Campion and Gerth Davis. We want to go with one part of the festival in that direction?

CM      Why?

DK      Well we have what we call in Germany Quality TV which is worldwide a big success and mostly produced by so-called film people.  This has worked already here [at the festival] and I know it is already reflected in the European Film Market.

CM      Any new tendencies you detect?

DK      Well many productions mirror the damages of the economic crisis of past years. You do not see any Wall Street movies, thus no productions about how it [the crisis] worked but rather about how it ended. How people are suffering.

CM      Thus impact of the crisis on the everyday life of the people

DK      Absolutely

CM      In one of the interviews you maintained that this is a political film festival with a sociological perspective.  Any comments?

DK      No, I am fine with that statement.

CM      Can you speculate about the political impact of the festival?

DK      It is very complicated.  There are some films which reflect condition of people at this moment, economically, psychologically and philosophically. There is a crisis, there are damages and wars, people are buying land in Africa, thus land grabs, food pollution, you name it. But we also have direct political actions. Look at the film of Jafar Panahi who is sitting in Teheran and is forbidden to work. He faces 20 years of prison if he does so. We show his film in competition [and four others out of solidarity]. Of course we like the film. [Presenting] it is an action for freedom of the arts and for freedom of the artist. This we are known for it and will not stop it.

CM      In all of our prior interviews about the berlinale, you always maintained that this festival is big enough that you do not want to expand it. Yet each year I attend the festival is bigger.  Is this an intentional growth, or does it reflect the general expansion of the film market?

DK      Well when I say no to you it is sort of an understatement because I am very careful enlarging [the festival].  Of the things we invented  over the last  ten years such as co-production market,  cooperation with the Frankfurt Book Fair,  changes in the European Film Market, Talent Campus, Forum Expanded now  branched with audio-visual arts, all these never failed, including the culinary cinema which has become the biggest success this year..

CM      So you have the golden touch?

DK      Well, but note that I am very careful. I am not talking big and doing small…. I am talking small and try to make it big

CM      Let me ask you a question that we discussed earlier. You had more than 7000 submission in addition to the productions that you, Christoph Terhechte [director of the Forum and Expanded Forum] and Wieland Speck [director of Panorama and Teddy] selected travelling to film festivals.  Also more than 4000 applications for the Talent Campus were received; when the Campus was started there were only 400. So the obvious question is how you cope with the ever-growing number of films reaching you, not to speak of the Campus applications.

DK      First of all you have the technical revolution. Over the last three years the number of films in the digital format has grown tremendously. Our film department where you had all the film copies before has been renamed film office and it is entirely digital, up to 90% are digital and only few films provided in the 35 mill format.  We work very hard to make no mistakes and are very well organized. There are mistakes which are unavoidable

CM      How many people are involved in the selection process?

DK      There are only ten people

CM      7000 submissions and ten people?

DK      No that is not how it works. The 7000 films have been seen by different committees and they recommend [move selections up] to the next [committee]. I am at the end of this process.  [For the Panorama there are 25 people reviewing 3000 productions]. I am looking at about 200 productions of which 20 are selected, If I were to see 7000 that would cover all of the berlinale program of the last 13 years

CM      And you would go blind.   Returning to the digital aspect would studios impose time limitations reviewing the films?

DK      That is an issue we have to think about in the future. There are some tests in the market but also in our creative department. Thus this year we have Samsung as a new partner, they have SmartTV and they started an award for young filmmakers using that technology. We also consider VOD platforms if we get the rights. Sundance is doing it already providing the option of seeing films on television or the internet after they were shown at the festival

CM      Do you anticipate having in the future a digital berlinale as suggested by a newspaper story, sort of the Kosslick digital Berlin film festival with one million viewers?  If you make films show at the festival available to a larger public would this be on a fee basis?

DK      They would have to pay a fee but not to me it would be paid to the owner of the rights. One million people watching these films would make me very happy… My problem would be that if most of the audience looks at the films on VOD or other platforms few would show up in cinemas or at the red carpet

CM      And your income from theaters would shrink

DK      Thus we need both theaters and digital platforms

CM      If you look at the budget compared to last year… have there been changes

DK      The budget is pretty much the same about 21 million Euros ($28 million)

CM      What is the percentage covered by ticket sales?

DK      About 30%

CM      Any changes of the budget shares provided by public and private sector?

DK      It has changed and it is a big complex field since the public sector by now carries only 30%, the rest comes from sponsors, from renting space, merchandising, and many other things. With respect to our cultural events, they are funded to a large extend by private/public partnerships. The private part funds two third and the public one the remainder

CM      Do you plan any changes for next year …? Though you like to say no.

DK      I would say no

CM      Yet if someone comes to you with an extraordinary smart idea small enough to embrace would you reject it?

DK      I would consider it.

The opening night film, in which Ugly Betty and Partners star Michael Urie makes his directorial debut, is an irreverent meta-comedy that includes actors ranging from indie fixtures, like Halley Feiffer and Ryan Spahn, to cameos by A-list household names like Jesse Eisenberg, Ben Stiller, Mamie Gummer and Ralph Macchio. They all play tongue-in-cheek caricatures of themselves to help tell the story of one fame-obsessed actress (Halley Feiffer) who is willing to do anything to make it in the entertainment industry, even if it means sabotaging her own happiness and wreaking havoc on the lives of those around her.

“We’re excited to bring back the film festival, due to popular demand,” said Charlie Prince, executive director of the Friars Club Comedy Film Festival. “For an opening film, we’re looking for something outrageously funny, with a fresh and original take on the comedy genre, and Michael Urie’s film hits all the marks.”

The Friars Club continues its commitment to comedy by nurturing new voices in entertainment through the film festival that promises six days of networking, parties, and laughter.  The festival offers filmmakers the opportunity to introduce their work to leading executives, comedians, and industry professionals. The Friars Club, known widely for its roasts and “100 years of antics,” has a roster of members including the industry’s top comedians and entertainers, from Frank Sinatra and Billy Crystal, to Whoopi Goldberg and Jerry Seinfeld.

For more information on the line up of films at this year’s Friars Club Comedy Film Festival, please visit http://www.friarsclub.com/filmfestival/.

About the Friars Club
The Friars Club was founded in 1904 as a meeting place for entertainers and over the years has achieved legendary status. Its membership includes the likes of Jimmy Fallon, Jon Stewart, Brian Williams, Barbra Streisand, Jerry Seinfeld, Rosario Dawson, Tom Cruise, Les Moonves, Whitney Cummings, Samuel L. Jackson and Robert De Niro. The Friars Club “Monastery” is headquartered in Midtown Manhattan in a classic townhouse and is a haven for entertainers young and old.

About the Comedy Film Festival
The Friars Club continues its tradition of commitment to comedy and nurturing new voices in entertainment with the Friars Club Comedy Film Festival. FCCFF seeks to give comedy films a world-class film festival to call home. On the calendar will be screenings of feature films, documentaries, and shorts from around the world, as well as panel discussions with leading film industry professionals. Films will be presented at the Friars Club clubhouse, supplemented by screenings at nearby theaters within walking distance. A panel of jurors comprised of filmmakers and professionals in the various fields of cinema will award the Festival’s Best Feature, Best Documentary, and Best Short distinctions.

My bona fides: I live in Las Vegas, formerly the domain of Siegfried and Roy, now the Cirque du Soliel fiefdom. My husband and I are friends with many mentalists, illusionists, and magicians: Alchemist and master magician Jeff McBride (founder of McBride Magic & Mystery School – for beginners and professional magicians http://www.vegaswonderground.com/), mentalist Alain Nu, and the renowned Amazing Kreskin (my husband is mentioned in Kreskin’s latest book, Conversations with Kreskin). I’ve seen all the magicians who have worked on The Strip.

Burt Wonderstone (Steve Carell) and Anton Marvelton (Steve Buscemi – the suave lover and killer Nucky Thompson of HBO’s “Broadwalk Empire”) are at the pinnacle of success after ruling at Ballys for over 10 years. Without tigers or lions, their Liberace-inspired show hasn’t changed since 1980. Its Vegas, baby and Burt is still showing chest hair! In heels, high AquaNet hair, and costumes that light up, they have one big show-stopper – The Hangman. It’s a corny and thread-bare show.

At this point Burt is going through the motions nightly. Since they have been together since they were 10 years old, they are now bickering like an old, unhappily married couple. Burt has become an arch A-hole with an extravagant lifestyle. He’s only interested in allowing adoring fans to have sex with him. Just like a world-famous soccer superstar is rumored to employ in such circumstances, Burt has his fans sign a confidentiality agreement. He has become a nasty prima donna.

I’ve seen Siegfried and Roy’s show several times. On October 3, 2003, during a show at The Mirage, Roy Horn was bitten on the neck by a seven-year-old male tiger named Montecore. Montecore had been trained by Roy since he was a cub and had performed with the act for six years. Field Entertainment, the company that produced the show, acknowledged that there is a video of the attack. I am making a list of videos we will never see: The first one is the backstage video of what happened to Roy. The second, well, perhaps it’s shown at certain Washington, D.C. parties. If you can add to my in-progress list, please contact me at masauu@aol.com.

There is a new breed of magician howling on The Strip. Steve Gray (Jim Carrey) is a street magician in the mold of David Blaine, doing tortuous stunts that reminded me of the Jansenist convulsionaries of 18th century Paris.* (See Below)

As Gray begins to gather momentum and a rabid following, the owner of Bally’s, Doug Munny (James Gandolfini), bluntly tells Burt and Anton that their ticket sales are crashing and to do something about it. After a disastrous stunt goes horribly wrong, Burt and Anton are fired and they break up. We find out that Burt has no savings due to a lavish lifestyle. We don’t know a thing about Anton’s private life. Did he save any money? Has he retired from show business? Is he writing a tell-all memoir?

After wallowing in misery in a motel room without room service, Burt finds inspiration from cranky, old magician Rance Holloway (Alan Arkin). Helped by a former stage assistant Jane (Olivia Wilde), that he constantly insulted and made a one-night-only pass at, he agrees to perform at Munny’s son’s birthday party. Instead of being the sole performer, it is really an audition for a 5-year contract at Munny’s new casino. And Steve Gray is there to challenge Burt.

Burt is so unappealing that it is hard to accept his Hollywood transformation to a kind, “emotionally present” (I hate this term!) man. Carell has a tough oar to row. And he wears too much pancake makeup on and off the stage. As I said, Anton stands around supporting Burt. Buscemi is always appealing in his tried-and-true emasculating role. He has the facial expressions down pat as the second banana. And this is why his casting as Nucky is so peculiar. I guess the creators did not want the star of the series to be someone women would fantasize about. See Cinemax’s Banshee starring Anthony Starr as the newest pay cable sex-symbol.

Jim Carrey is given just enough to make you want more of Steve Gray. And his Steve Gray does not waver from who he is. You can accept him because he is upfront about his egotism; whereas, how can Burt change after spending 10 years as a flagrant misogynist?

I loved Steve Gray’s last stunt – an attempt at trepanation – a practice I find fascinating.

I wonder if the two screenwriters, Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, and the four others listed on IMDb.com for story credit, were referencing trepanation since, as Steve Gray implies, modern day advocates have practiced non-emergency trepanation for psychic purposes.

THE INCREDIBLE BURT WONDERSTONE has the absolute best ending that makes you love the movie when leaving the theater.

Victoria Alexander is a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association: www.bfca.org/ and the Las Vegas Film Critics Society: www.lvfcs.org/. Victoria’s weekly column, “The Devil’s Hammer,” is posted every Monday. http://www.fromthebalcony.com/editorials.php.

If you would like to be included on Victoria’s private distribution list for a weekly preview, just email her at masauu@aol.com. Victoria lives in Las Vegas, Nevada and answers every email. You can contact Victoria directly at masauu@aol.com.

*Jansenist Convulsionaries of 18th century Paris were a group of people who gathered around the grave of saintly François de Pâris and started going into convulsions and glossolalia in which they would become cured of various diseases and ailments and often demanded to be tortured, which torture they had a superhuman ability to withstand.

For Jansenists, the miracles exhibited by the convulsionaires represented God’s grace manifested in human history.  One of the most famous convulsionnaires was Mlle. Gabrielle Moler. She became a convulsionnaire at about twelve years old. She was recognized as leading a particularly ascetic life. Gabrielle was able to endure feats of great physical suffering without any sign of harm. Her four assistants would pound rods into the pit of her belly. They pushed rods through her throat and attempted to pound shovels into her breast.

Without any discomfort, Gabrielle would invite spectators to participate in savagely beating her with shovels. A hammer was then produced and Gabrielle would receive hundreds of blows to her body. An iron pestle, with a sharpened point, was then administered to her body. After these ordeals, Gabrielle would place her head into a blazing fire that was prepared especially for her demonstrations. It was reported that Gabrielle was able to keep her head in the fire for a quarter of an hour. Gabrielle was only one of many women and men who exhibited and tested themselves.

Finally, the authorities closed the cemetery where the convulsionnaires gathered and the movement was driven underground. These doings were reportedly observed by hundreds of witnesses who rented chairs to be closer to the action.

Cases of similar feats abound today in religious communities. Modern-day scientists call these abilities “The Deliberately Caused Bodily Damage” (DCBD) phenomena, whereby individuals cause serious wounds to their without feeling pain, loss of blood or infection. In these feats, wound-healing is usually rapid. The most recognized and studied group is a Sufi school known as Tariqa Casnazaniyyah.

Portia Nathan (Tina Fey) has some mommy-daddy issues. Her feminist mother Susannah (Lily Tomlin), sporting a Bella Abzug tattoo, proudly keeps reminding her Princeton educated daughter that she intentionally got pregnant by a stranger on a train. She wanted a child but not the burden of a husband. Why won’t Portia call her “Susannah” instead on insisting on using “Mom”? So, raised by a single parent, Portia finds herself in her 30’s, a Princeton graduate, working for 13 years as a Princeton admissions officer, and living with a slimy department head Mark (Michael Sheen) who is having an affair with a vixen colleague (Sonya Walger). They are having twins.

Regardless of not living up to her mother’s radical expectations, Portia has a very difficult, demanding job at one of the most prestigious universities in the world. Out of over 20,000 applicants, Portia and her fellow admissions officers must find the perfect students who will make up Princeton’s Class of 2016.

According to the Princeton website, Princeton University received 26,664 applications for admission to the Class of 2016 and admitted 2,094 students and enrolled a record 1,357 students. Those numbers included 603 students who were enrolled through the single-choice early action process. Over the past eight years, the University has seen a 95 percent increase in applications, including seven continuous years of growth leading to a record 27,189 applications last year for the Class of 2015.

While Portia is blissfully unaware of her boyfriend’s affair, the Dean of Admissions, Clarence (Wallace Shawn*), is retiring and will choose either her or Corinne (Gloria Reuben) as his successor. I assume being an admission officer at Princeton is a high paying status position. It does come with challenges: every applicant is an over-achiever, academically worthy, and has wealthy parents (who can make generous donations). When I searched Wiki.answers for ‘how much money does a college admissions director make?’ The best and only answer was: “$1. Their real compensation comes from destroying the lives of hopeful college prospects.” (Clever and well said though I had to correct all the misspellings.)

*Shawn will always be remembered for his Battle of Wits scene in THE PRINCESS BRIDE (2002). Vizzini: “You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is “Never get involved in a land war in Asia.” But only slightly less well known is this: “Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ahahahaha, ahahahaha, ahahaha.”

What is the Princeton criteria for admission? Janet Lavin Rapelye, the dean of admissions for Princeton University, answered reader’s questions in September, 2012 for The New York Times. http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/guidance-office-princeton-answers-1/ **

**One question submitted by a Chinese student but not addressed by Rapelye was most revealing. It ended with this: “Let me be honest: It’s well-known that grades, recommendation letters, claims about extracurricular activities and the like are almost always faked (and bought) by students here in China. (I’m commenting from Shanghai, but it’s the same all over China.) Even personal statements and essays can be outsourced. Sadly, even an SAT score can be “bought.” The going rate here in SH is RMB 20,000, about $3,200.”

Now, after my hour-long research on all things Princeton, I return to critiquing the movie: Portia’s mantra is that there is no secret formula for getting in to Princeton. But, it seems, everything hinges not only on academic and SAT scores, but the much-feared essay.

One part of an admission officer’s job is to go around her designated area and visit high schools. Hounded by a teacher, John Pressman (Paul Rudd), who runs an alternative school and happens to have been a former college classmate of Portia’s, she goes to the nearby high school, New Quest. John is teaching the students how to build a fort. John singles out one student to campaign for: Jeremiah Balakian (Nat Wolff). Jeremiah is adopted and his parents work at a convenience store. He’s a proud autodidact with poor grades but perfect test scores. He passed five courses without taking them. Does John sleep with Portia to close the deal? Only someone as jaded as me would consider this.

If you have seen the trailer for ADMISSION, it’s no secret that John tells Portia he has proof that Jeremiah is the baby she gave up for adoption when she was in college. Now, John wants Portia to make sure that Jeremiah gets into Princeton. Portia does every unethical trick to help Jeremiah. As a respected Princeton employee and a frontrunner for the position of Dean of Admissions, what Portia does is shocking. She should have told the dead of admissions that Jeremiah was her son and recused herself from judging his application. Instead, she plays dirty. She makes a sly deal with arch-rival Corrine to vote for her candidate in exchange for Corrine’s vote for Jeremiah.

This is a role for Helen Hunt. Fey does not have the acting depth to play such a role. She cannot get into the skin of Portia. Losing Mark is just an inconvenience after 10 years together. Her mother’s double mastectomy is dealt with by the comment “I could have driven you to the hospital”. A scene like this needs a strong emotional undercurrent. And poor Rudd is forced to play a one-note, environmental Brown Shirt character filled with shopworn speeches about digging wells in Uganda (where he adopted a sassy-mouthed boy). You can tell Rudd is uncomfortable with the hackneyed dialogue he has to say and then say again. All Rudd can do is fall back on his charm and give a look of engagement and sincerity.

Tomlin is terrific. You wanted more from her character, a sharply written role that Tomlin underplays. Tomlin knows this defiant character and delivers the dialogue without plowing it into the ground. Somehow we see Susannah’s whole life in the way Tomlin plays her.

Children are hard to raise. Adopted children come with a deeper, more troubling dynamic. I know several people who adopted children. It has turned out badly since there is always resentment. They feel cheated and there are only two people to take their bitterness out on – the well-meaning adoptive parents. It is a fact that – even if the mother had good reasons – they were abandoned and given up by their mother. However, Jeremiah and John’s son are both well-adjusted, happy adoptees.

Portia got pregnant, slipped away for a few months and then returned to her college life. A small blip that could have ruined her CV. She never mentioned it again or showed any regret. It’s like she gave away a kitten. Wouldn’t we see some angst for the children she turns down for admission? Would she look at babies and wonder “what if”. Did she ever think about what happened to her baby?

Is this a comedy? I laughed just twice. The stab at laughter when John forced Portia to help with a pregnant cow was not funny.

The director, Paul Weitz, who directed one of the most emotionally engaging films, ABOUT A BOY (2002), fails here. The actors over-exaggerate with clown-like faces in the opening scenes. Weitz does not seem to be able to actually direct Fey. He cannot get her to emotionally relate to the scenes. What was it about the novel by Jean Hanff Koreliz and the screenplay by Karen Croner that appealed to him? Was it just a paycheck? The energy is missing in Weitz’s directing.

Tina Fey can do no wrong, but in my opinion, ADMISSION, as a vehicle for her first starring role and name-above-the-title movie, misses the mark.

Victoria Alexander is a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association: www.bfca.org/ and the Las Vegas Film Critics Society: www.lvfcs.org/. Victoria’s weekly column, “The Devil’s Hammer,” is posted every Monday. http://www.fromthebalcony.com/editorials.php.

If you would like to be included on Victoria’s private distribution list for a weekly preview, just email her at masauu@aol.com. Victoria lives in Las Vegas, Nevada and answers every email. You can contact Victoria directly at masauu@aol.com.

Director Sam Raimi’s 3-D CGI fantasy is a fractured prequel to one of America’s most beloved films of all time— “The Wizard of Oz” (1939). The Wizard is played by James Franco and much like the character played by Frank Morgan in the original film he is a charlatan of sorts. The film begins with a wonderful black and white look at a carnival in Kansas of 1905.  Having angered the circus strong man by hitting on his girlfriend, magician Oscar Diggs (James Franco) hightails it onto a hot-air balloon which is engulfed by a tornado and sent hurtling into Oz as the film switches to glorious Technicolor.

Oscar wants to be a great man but seems to lack the character to achieve his aspiration.  The film is a sort of series of adventures which will allow him to grow into a better person.  Our hero encounters three strikingly beautiful witches played by Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams, all who believe him to be a mystical visitor who will save their land from doom and gloom. But we also know that one of these witches will become evil and try to destroy our hero.

Oscar, as did Dorothy in the 1939 film, sets off down the yellow brick road with the added intent of stealing the wand of the wicked witch.   Along the way he meets a flying monkey (Zach Braff), saves a broken China Girl (Joey King) and floats in a giant soap bubble.  But, what is lacking in this film, written by Mitchell Kapner and David Lindsay-Abaire, is any sense of drama and the one note performance from Mila Kunis doesn’t help.

Like many of these big budget films green- lighted in Hollywood these days this film lacks heart- something ironically sought so desperately by the Tin Man.

1. Know Where You Stand. Ask yourself if you are willing to do something that your friends want you do. Think about it and determine for yourself where you stand on a certain task or issue. Determine what you want to do in terms of your career goals.

2. Tell Others. Once you know where you stand, you need to communicate this to your friends and other people your intentions. Give them reasons on why you feel this way. Be willing to answer their questions so they understand where you are coming from.

3. Stand Tall. Be firm in your decision and show confidence. Some people will continue to argue with you and this is where you need to show that you mean business. Do not give in to their arguments. Do what is right and stand with your decision.

4. Deal With Supportive Friends. Hang out with different people or friends who do not respect your decisions. If your friends really like you, they need to respect you. Nobody wants to be with people who are trying to get them into some kind of trouble.

5. Stay Consistent. Stay consistent on your values and beliefs. If people see that you are constantly changing your mind then they will not take you seriously. Regardless what you believe in, be consistent in what you preach.

Dealing with the pressures of Hollywood can be tough to deal with, but the important thing is to do what is best for you and advocate this to others. If some people do not like it, then that is their problem.

Biography:
Stan Popovich is the author of “A Layman’s Guide to Managing Fear Using Psychology, Christianity and Non Resistant Methods” – an easy to read book that presents a general overview of techniques that are effective in managing persistent fears and anxieties. For additional information go to: http://www.managingfear.com/

1.Give it some time. At first, you will feel sad and will not want to do anything, however things do get better as time goes on. Give it a month or so and you will feel a little better. Just understand that as more as time goes by, the better you will feel.

2. Meet new people. Do some volunteer work to meet some people and make new friends. Getting involved by helping others will make you feel better and your help could assist many people who may be worse off than you. Go to your local church and see what kinds of volunteer activities are available in the community.

3. Stay Active. Determine what interests you may have and pursue those things you may like to do. Maybe you always wanted to travel someplace and never had the time or maybe you wanted to try a new hobby. This would be a great time to do something you like.

4. Help The Animals. Get involved at your local animal shelter. Animals can be a great source of companionship and they can help uplift our spirits. Animals are a great way to prevent loneliness and many of them need your help. You won’t be sorry if you spend some time playing with a dog, cat or other animal.

5. Learn to manage your negative thinking. When you are depressed, you will tend to think of negative things. When this happens remind yourself that worry exaggerates the problems you have and that things will get better. Try to avoid negative thoughts and remain positive.

6. Stay Optimistic. Remind yourself that you will meet other people and make new friends. Try to go to places where you can meet other people and just be yourself. You never know when you might make a new friend.

Remember that just because you ended a relationship does not mean that you will be alone for the rest of your life. People come and go and with that relationships develop and end. The key is to be the best person you can be and just be yourself. You will feel better a lot faster if you stay active and make the effort to make new friends.

BIOGRAPHY:
Stan Popovich is the author of “A Layman’s Guide to Managing Fear Using Psychology, Christianity and Non Resistant Methods” For additional information go to: http://www.managingfear.com/

1. Determine the source of your fears. If a person can determine what is causing their mental health issues, then he or she will be better able to find the answers to their fears.

2. Listen to the professionals and not your fans. Many people in the entertainment industry tend to worry about what their colleagues think and that can be a mistake. Always follow the advice of a professional mental health counselor.

3. Don’t Do Too Much. Sometimes we get stressed out when everything happens all at once. When this happens, a person should take a deep breath and try to find something to do for a few minutes to get their mind off of the problem. A person could get some fresh air, listen to some music, or do an activity that will give them a fresh perspective on things.

4. Learn to take it one day at a time. Instead of worrying about how you will get through the rest of the week or coming month, try to focus on today. Each day can provide us with different opportunities to learn new things and that includes learning how to deal with your problems. When the time comes, hopefully you will have learned the skills to deal with your situation.

5. Stay Positive. A technique that is very helpful is to have a small notebook of positive statements that makes you feel good. Whenever you come across an affirmation that makes you feel good, write it down in a small notebook that you can carry around with you in your pocket. Whenever you feel depressed or frustrated, open up your small notebook and read those statements. This will help to manage your negative thinking.

6. Get Help. Take advantage of the help that is available around you. If possible, talk to a professional who can help you manage your depression and anxieties. They will be able to provide you with additional advice and insights on how to deal with your current problem.

When your fears and anxieties have the best of you, seek help from a professional. The key is to be patient, take it slow, and not to give up. In time, you will be able to find those resources that will help you with your problems.

BIOGRAPHY:
Stan Popovich is the author of “A Layman’s Guide to Managing Fear Using Psychology, Christianity and Non Resistant Methods” – an easy to read book that presents a general overview of techniques that are effective in managing persistent fears and anxieties. For additional information go to: http://www.managingfear.com/

The most important thing to do is to know where you stand on a certain issue. Ask yourself if you are willing to do something that your fans want you do. Think about it and determine for yourself where you stand on a certain task or issue. Ask yourself if it is the right thing to do and if it is legal. Determine what you want to do.

Once you know where you stand, you need to communicate this to your fans and other people your intentions. Explain to them that you do not want to do what it is they are asking for you to do. Give them reasons on why you feel this way. Be willing to answer their questions so they understand where you are coming from.

Be firm in your decision and show confidence. Some of your fans will continue to argue with you and this is where you need to show that you mean business. Do not give in to their arguments. Do what is right and stand with your decision. This can be tough but remind them that you do not feel comfortable in doing a certain task.

Be happy with who you are. You do not need to impress members of the media and your fans to have a good time or to have friends. Find people who will accept you for who you are. It is better to be alone than to be with people who pretend to like you.

Doing what is best for you will save you a lot of trouble in the long run. It is better to play it safe than to be sorry.

There will always be people who will disagree with you. A celebrity needs to understand that they need to live their own life instead of trying to please everybody.

BIOGRAPHY:
Stan Popovich is the author of “A Layman’s Guide to Managing Fear Using Psychology, Christianity and Non Resistant Methods” – an easy to read book that presents a general overview of techniques that are effective in managing persistent fears and anxieties. For additional information go to: http://www.managingfear.com/

1. Seek help.

Take advantage of the help that is available around you. If possible, talk to a professional who can help you manage your depression and anxieties. They will be able to provide you with additional advice and insights on how to deal with your current problem.

2. Focus on Getting Better.

Your main goal is to get better and not to please your friends and coworkers. A person can’t live a normal and haopy life when their mental health and fears are out of control.

3.Learn to take it one day at a time.

Instead of worrying about how you will get through the rest of the week, try to focus on today. Each day can provide us with different opportunities to learn new things and that includes learning how to deal with your problems.

4. Pace Yourself.

When facing a current or upcoming task at your entertainment related job that makes your anxious, divide the task into a series of smaller steps and then complete each of the smaller tasks one at a time. Completing these smaller tasks will make the stress more manageable and increases your chances of success.

5. Stay Positive.

A technique that is very helpful is to have a small notebook of positive statements that makes you feel good. Whenever you come across an affirmation that makes you feel good, write it down in a small notebook that you can carry around with you in your pocket. Whenever you feel anxious, open up your small notebook and read those statements.

Our anxieties, stresses, and fears can be difficult to manage in the entertainment industry. The more control you have over your stresses and anxieties, the better off you will be in the long run.

Biography:
Stan Popovich is the author of “A Layman’s Guide to Managing Fear Using Psychology, Christianity and Non Resistant Methods” – an easy to read book that presents a general overview of techniques that are effective in managing persistent fears and anxieties. For additional information go to: http://www.managingfear.com/

The first step in not getting stressed as you get older is to get some exercise and eat a lot of healthy foods. Before exercising, you should talk to your doctor to make sure you do not hurt yourself. A common way to exercise is to take walks around your neighborhood or local park. This is also a good way to meet people.

Make sure you go to your regular doctor appointments to make sure that nothing is wrong with you and your health. A lot of things can be prevented if you get a early diagnosis. This will help you to remain healthy without the fear of old age.

Another way to not getting stressed as you age is to keep your mind active. Do some crossword puzzles or other thinking games to keep your mind sharp. Play some chess or some game that requires a lot of thinking. The more you use your mind the better off you will be as you get older.

Learn effective ways to reduce the stress in your life. Stress is not good for you and it is important to know how to relieve tension and stress. There are counselors that you can talk to if you have trouble dealing with anxiety.

Remain positive and avoid negative thoughts. Also read some self help books that have a lot of positive affirmations and statements. Reading these statements can help you to remain positive and replace negative thoughts. If you still have trouble then see a counselor who can teach you different ways to remain positive and reduce worry and stress.

Develop a network of friends and get involved in different social groups will help you as you get older. Friends can reduce loneliness and also makes us feel better. If you do not know anyone then join a local church or social group. Another idea is to volunteer. There are many people who need help and volunteering will keep us active.

Finally, prayer is a great way to reduce the fear and anxiety of getting older. We are unable to control the events that may happen down the road, however God has the power to take care of you. It wouldn’t hurt to include God in your life and say some prayers occasionally. Prayer is a great way to reduce stress and to remain positive.

Again there is nothing to worry about as you get older if you take things in stride.

Everyone ages and is a part of life. If you still have trouble dealing with anxieties of getting older then you should talk to a clergyman or counselor. They can provide additional advice on how to reduce your anxieties.

BIOGRAPHY:
Stan Popovich is the author of “A Layman’s Guide to Managing Fear Using Psychology, Christianity and Non Resistant Methods” – an easy to read book that presents a general overview of techniques that are effective in managing persistent fears and anxieties. For additional information go to: http://www.managingfear.com/

Eventually in life, you will experience some rejection. When you go for the job interview or ask somebody on a date, you will get turned down eventually. There is no way to avoid getting turned down and you will have to get used to not getting everything you want.

When dealing with any kind of rejection, make it a practice of learning from it. Try learning from your mistakes so that when you try again you will not make the same mistakes. You will also increase your chances of making it the next time around.

Keep on trying and do not give up. Sometimes it will take a lot of persistence to get something you want. A lot of times you will not make it the first or second time around. Persistence and having some patience are important if you want to accomplish anything.

Learn to take it one day at a time. Instead of worrying about how you will get through the rest of the week or coming month, try to focus on today. Each day can provide us with different opportunities to learn new things and that includes learning how to deal with your problems.

There is no reason why a person should beat themselves up when things don’t go their way. We cannot get everything we want all of the time. If you experience some rejection, consider it a learning opportunity and then try not to make the same mistakes the next time around.

A lot of times, our worrying can make the problem even worse. All the worrying in the world will not change anything. All you can do is to do your best each day, hope for the best, and when something does happen, take it in stride. Do not get upset and manage your negative thoughts.

Take advantage of the help that is available around you. If possible, talk to a professional who can help you manage your fears and anxieties. They will be able to provide you with additional advice and insights on how to deal with your current problem. By talking to a professional, a person will be helping themselves in the long run because they will become better able to deal with their problems in the future.

Dealing with failure does not have to be hard. Remember that all you can do is to do your best each day, hope for the best, and take things in stride. Patience, persistence, education, and being committed in trying to solve your problem will go along way in fixing your problems.

BIOGRAPHY:
Stan Popovich is the author of “A Layman’s Guide to Managing Fear Using Psychology, Christianity and Non Resistant Methods” – an easy to read book that presents a general overview of techniques that are effective in managing persistent fears and anxieties. For additional information go to: http://www.managingfear.com/

1. People don’t control their own fame. A person must understand that fame comes and goes and that a person has no control over his or her popularity. Fame is elusive and cannot be controlled.

2. Always remember your values. Your friends and family will be with you for your entire life while your fame may only last for a short time. Good  relationships can last for a lifetime.

3. Don’t give in to peer pressure. When the cameras disappear, it will just be you, your family and closest friends. Don’t allow being in the spotlight to affect your decision making.

4. You can’t remain on top forever. A celebrity may be the talk of the town today, but tomorrow is a whole other story. There are millions of people who are also trying to be in the spotlight. You will not remain on top for long; it only makes sense to focus on what is best for you in the long-run.

5. Don’t put fame before your life and relationships. Many celebrities focus on their fame which is a short term thing. This is a huge mistake! Celebrities should focus on what they want to get out of life instead of focusing on their current popularity. It’s important to make the decisions that are best for your personal life including your current relationships.

6. Good Things Do Not Last. Regardless if your rich and powerful good things do not last forever. Don’t get caught up in your popularity and success. It won’t last.

Learn from the mistakes of others who have lost their fame. There are a countless number of people who made the mistake of letting fame get the best of them. If you are not sure of what to do in when you lose your fame and popularity, then talk to a professional who can give you some advice.

BIOGRAPHY:
Stan Popovich is the author of “A Layman’s Guide to Managing Fear Using Psychology, Christianity and Non Resistant Methods”.For additional information go to: www.managingfear.com

Several productions dominated the program, including the powerful documentary THE TRIAL OF ADOLF EICHMANN, France 2011, (Michael Prazan), the biopic HANNAH ARENDT (Margarethe von Trotta, Germany, 2012) with Arendt superbly enacted by Barbara Sukowa, and Fabienne Rousso-Lenoir’s CABARET BERLIN – THE WILD SCENE, (Germany, France 2010), an extraordinary narrative of Weimar’s passage into the Third Reich as seen reflected in its cabaret scene. Prazan offers a level headed view of Eichmann with a step by step account of   his capture and trial, the media and social context of his prosecution and punishment; and review of the controversies surrounding the trial.  Eichmann is documented through his self-presentation at the trial leaving it up to the viewer to form an interpretation. Von Trotta presents Arendt over a four year period in her life with an emphasis on her New Yorker reporting of the Eichmann trial. As a philosopher and political theoretician her controversial coverage of Eichmann as a soulless bureaucrat executing orders caused a major scandal. Rather than following the popular and readily accepted view of Eichmann as a deranged monster, Arendt considered him as reflecting the banality of evil, a position for which plausible evidence exists. Facilitating the murder of millions Eichmann was evil but normal. Psychiatrist Leon Goldensohn provides in his Nuremberg Interviews related insights.  He suggests on the basis of lengthy  interviews of 33 high ranking   defendants and witnesses, the leadership of the Third Reich,  that  only Rudolf Hess and possibly  Hans Frank were mentally ill. Most of the others were well educated family men with above average intelligence. Possibly the best film in this year’s selection is Fabienne Rousso-Lenoir’s CABARET BERLIN – THE WILD SCENE. No matter which perspective one has, be it popular culture, sophisticated storytelling, or understanding of the link between politics and socio-economic contexts, this film is a master piece as indicated by numerous awards.  The film makers are weaving a tremendous amount of material drawn from feature films, archives, recording of songs, and news footage and turn thirty years of coverage into a coherent narrative structure. Biting commentaries, satirical statements and witty cabaret songs predict the Nazi disaster to come.  CABARET BERLIN includes elucidating statements about the class structure, the rise of a society wedded to the surface and narcissism, the degradation caused by industrial society, the disappearance of the individual, and the apparent naiveté of self styled elites and the political leadership. Battles between Brown shirts and the Red Front dominate the street. There is no center to hold German society together and after Hitler’s rise to power most of the Jewish artists, who had shaped the cabaret , artistic  and intellectual scene are exiled, tortured or killed; be it Benjamin, Dix,  the Manns,  Brecht, Lenya and many others. The film reflects an incredible research and documentation job and is inspired by thinkers like Adorno, Tucholsky and Toller.  This production is a must see film not only for those interested in the culture and politics of the  Weimar republic but also anyone dealing with large amounts of material and the need of weaving  hundreds of segments into a coherent meaningful structure, though CABARET BERLIN will be a difficult act to follow.

Neil Barsky’ biopic KOCH (U.S. 2012) on the famed former Mayor Ed Koch is a lengthy collection of selections from archival material. It shows the rise and fall of Koch and provides interesting insights into the crises Koch surmounted and his achievements. They range from overcoming a subway strike to creating public housing, response to numerous race issues, conflicted encounters with the Afro American community, and Koch’s reaction to the AIDS epidemic. In spite of the discovery of news and documentary material rarely seen before this biopic is troubled by a weak coherent narrative structure. Viewers will wonder about the outcomes of his initiatives and, more importantly, the forces motivating Koch. Somehow it seems that the film was rushed to completion, that film makers did not have the time or patience to cull surplus images and establish clearer connections. THE ART OF SPIEGELMAN by Clara Kuperberg and Joelle Oosterlinck (France, 2010) provides a succinct and intimate portrait of the famed creator of MAUS, the classic comic about his parents’ survival of the holocaust. Here we find the reflexive statements by Art Spiegelman completely missing from the comments of Koch in his biopic. Through Spiegelman’s accounts we are faced with his childhood memories, suffering, raw emotions, and creative drives. He has the need of “reinventing his art for each drawing” and is motivated by “the muse… [of] disasters, small or large”. He lived with parents who were `camp survivors and interviewed his father whose experience provided the back bone for Spiegelman’s unsentimental classic holocaust story MAUS: A SURVIVOR’S TALE (1986). In this graphic comics novel he depicts murderous Nazis as cats, persecuted Jews as mice and non-Jewish Poles as pigs from the thirties to the 1945 end of the holocaust. As Spiegelman puts it, he is scared of having nothing else to do, yet he is reborn on each of the pages he draws, though he needed a decade to escape the shadow of MAUS.  Spiegelman mentions that he refused to be drawn into the ‘holokitsch’ of popular culture of the 80s. This film is a superb biographical learning experience.

Oma (Regina Karolinski) and Bella (Bella Katz) by Alexa Karolinski, Germany U.S., 2011) is a touching humanistic depiction of the everyday life of two close friends who survived the camps, and decided to stay in Germany and live together in Berlin.  Oma and Bella are queried by the film maker, a grandchild, and prefer to keep mostly silent about the past so as not to have to relive it, but provide spontaneous revealing comments. Survival in camps was possible for the strongest only and after liberation the Soviet commander allowed for two days to take revenge. And the dreadful past breaks through in dreams. Oma recalling her dream of seeing   as a child her father who had hung himself with a smile on his face since he escaped falling into the hands of the Nazis. Oma and Bella share the problems of adjusting to the normal life and their attempts to recapture the formative years of their youth which were stolen by the Nazis. Both friends share a sense of humor and are more at ease talking about the food they love than   about the past.   Oma and Bella are two amazing strong personalities who started new families replacing their own lost ones and are able to celebrate life.

Based on a true story, SUSKIND by Rudolf Van Den Berg (Netherlands, 2012) is an appealing feature film about the moral issues of being a member of the Jewish Council in occupied Holland not knowing about the Judenrat’s function to deliver countless people to the Nazis.  Once the protagonist learns that he has facilitated the deportation of 40 000 Dutch Jews he saves many children from the death transports. Yet he cannot prevent his wife and child from being placed on a transport and he joins them in their passage to their certain doom.

As the current edition demonstrates, the New York Jewish Festivals has retained its place as the premiere U.S. show case of Jewish and Israeli themed films on significant issues   and concerns elucidating our understanding of the Jewish Experience

Luke (Ryan Gosling) is a motorcycle stunt rider in a “circus-style” county fair traveling show. In a Cirque du Soliel type of circular cage, Luke, along with two other motorcyclists, go fast around the cage trying not to crash into each other. Luke is the star attraction.

In a stopover on the circuit in Schenectady, New York, Luke’s brief fling Romina (Eva Mendes) turns up. He gives her a ride home but she tells him she is living with someone. Later, stopping by her house, he sees that Romina has a year old son – his.

Since Luke has absolutely no savings, no clothes, and no possessions, his promise to take care of Romina and his son is absurd. When he is offered a daring way out of his financial Waterloo he takes it. Like Willie Sutton said, he goes “where the money is.”

Luke’s decision has consequences and is played out over 15 years. One person linked to Luke is brand new policeman Aaron Cross (Bradley Cooper). Aaron’s life is impacted by crossing paths with Luke.

It is impossible to continue summarizing the plot without running into spoilers. I’d like to highlight the work of Emory Cohen, who plays a young 16 year-old. Casting director Cindy Tolan did her job well. And I love the work of terrific character actor Ben Mendelsohn. His work in KILLING THEM SOFTLY was terrific!

Directed by Derek Cianfrance and co-written with Ben Coccio and Darius Marder, THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES has a haunting quality that gives it an unsettling, frenetic quality. Starring roles have no sanctified importance for Cianfrance.

While Gosling has the drifter vibe down pat – even sporting a tattoo under his eye and amateur graffiti all over his body – his face expresses more than his necessity for dialogue. Cooper, on the other hand, has a role that makes a progression. And he admirably makes the transition. With SILVER LINING PLAYBOOK and now THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES, Cooper must now be recognized as a first class actor. We can forgive him THE HANGOVER 3 – he’s probably contractually obliged to do it.

There are no pure, blameless characters in Cianfrance’s worldview. Morality is flexible and self-interest is paramount.

This is the second time Ryan Gosling – who could be said to be Cianfrance’s alter-ego – has worked with Cianfrance. They made the highly original, riveting BLUE VALENTINE (2010).

Victoria Alexander is a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association: www.bfca.org/ and the Las Vegas Film Critics Society: www.lvfcs.org/. Victoria’s weekly column, “The Devil’s Hammer,” is posted every Monday. http://www.fromthebalcony.com/editorials.php.

If you would like to be included on Victoria’s private distribution list for a weekly preview, just email her at masauu@aol.com. Victoria lives in Las Vegas, Nevada and answers every email. You can contact Victoria directly at masauu@aol.com.

In 21 and Over, two friends from high school (played by Miles Teller and Skylar Astin) want to surprise their other friend, Jeff Chang, for his 21^st birthday.  Jeff Chang, however, has an important med school interview in the morning and doesn’t want to go out.  The uncaring friends twist Jeff Chang’s wrist and force him to have a couple of drinks.  But what starts out as a couple of drinks turns into a crazy night where the group finds themselves in all sorts of trouble and moral dilemmas.  Eventually, the group gets lost and Jeff Chang passes out.  It is now the two friends’ sole mission to figure out where Jeff Chang lives and get him home safely before he misses his med school interview.

   21 and Over is the lowest form of comedy.  There is nothing creative about it.  Unless you giggle at male nudity or when a person says the F word, there is very little to laugh at during this movie.  I want to go on record and say that it is very hard to offend me.  I can laugh at something inappropriate and racist, but it has to be somewhat clever.  Honestly, I was offended by this movie.  It was extremely racist in so many ways.  But it wasn’t offensive just because it was racist.  It was offensive because all of the racist comments were dumb and unoriginal.  There were so many times in the film where the audience was supposed to laugh at a character just because they were Asian or some other non-American ethnicity.  Moving past the racism, it is beyond frustrating how childish the characters act.  None of the characters in this film are likeable in any way.  There’s no reason to relate to them and there’s certainly no reason to root for them.  The only character who seems to have his life together, starts falling in love with a really sleazy college student.  The character played by Miles Teller, is a total ass and feels no remorse for how much trouble he has gotten his friends into.  Throughout the whole night he continues to make terrible choices and continues to drink.  And when the group finds themselves in a deeper hole he says something like, “I’m sorry for trying to give you guys a good time.”  Why would anyone be friends with someone who is so selfish?  Speaking of Miles Teller; this guy just won a best actor award at the Sundance Film Festival for his work in The Spectacular Now.  What is he doing in a mediocre film like this?  After a while, you start to feel bored watching this movie.  You get really tired of watching the characters go to another party and have another drink and do another stupid thing.  21 and Over is so repetitive that you start to feel dizzy.  This movie is only 90 minutes long but I’m telling you, it is a long 90 minutes.

There is absolutely nothing special about 21 and Over.  Not only are the jokes lazy but the plot is extremely predictable.  This script must have been written in less than a day because anyone can see where the plot is going ten minutes into the movie.  I will say that the film tries to have a message in the end, but the movie is so immature that I feel like no one will take the message seriously.  It’s obvious that very little work went into this movie and if you pay to see it, the studio is robbing you blind.  The money you work hard for is not worth it to sit through 21 and Over.  The film even tries to gross you out in a scene by making two guys kiss.  That’s the kind of comedy this is.  If you think it’s funny and/or disgusting to watch two men kiss then you need to grow up.  Definitely skip this movie.  Anything you choose to do this weekend is more productive than watching this filth.

Under Kosslick the berlinale has become crucial for German productions which had been neglected under his Hollywood struck predecessor Moritz de Hadeln. This year 107 German productions are in main program,  including two in  main competition .There was a special emphasis on young film makers  which helps them get funding. In Germany film productions tend to be heavily subsidized by various public agencies covering on an average 40% of the costs

The prominence of issue oriented political cinema was present in the main competition and most sections. Their awards ranged from  two silver bears for  An Episode in the Life of an Iron Picker by Danis Tanovic depicting the  condition of a Roma family in Bosnia Herzegovina to the Peace  Film Award  for A World Not Ours by Mahdi Fleifel on growing up in a Palestinian refugee camp.  The underlying theme in many productions reflected our socio-economic crises in the everyday life and struggles of individuals

There is an overall expansion of the berlinale and its European Film Market (WEFM). The 2013 berlinale   attracted 19.630 accredited visitors from 124 countries, including 3.694 journalists, the only apparent decline due to a more rigorous accreditation process.  EFM has grown with the exhibition space.  Several months before it opened the EFM exhibition space was already booked out.  According to some indicators the 2012 EFM seems larger than the 2012 American Film Market the.  The EFM program of 816 films was featured in 1166 screenings in 40 screening facilities.  Close to 600 films were market premieres.  EFMI attracted 455 exhibitors and about 1700 buyers and 6000 other professionals   from 66 countries. Noteworthy is the larger number of big budget commercial films at the market. Though the traditional  art house  and independent cinema orientation of EFM will be maintained, there was an expansion  toward commercial fare,  Variety  called it the Big Bang trading  leaving many small titles in the cold . The Weinstein Company figured as the most prominent buyer. The Forum has also grown.  Traditionally the screening domain for the most innovative productions it has organized a larger Forum Expanded program this year.  Numerous venues outside the Potsdam Platz including a former crematorium in Wedding were used exploring the experimental intersection of film video, the arts, and visual perception.  The offerings included free-form programs, projection installation and mini exhibitions. Among the most prominent Expanded Forum participants this year was Isabella Rossellini and her Mammas performance where she commented on motherhood assuming the role of a fish and bird and of other creatures.

All together including the EFM line up 1194 productions were shown of which 404 were also programmed in different 2013 berlinale sections. More than 7000 individual titles were submitted. Additional films were selected by the festival curator and program staff. For the Panorama alone 25 advisors reviewed about 3500 productions to select 52 for the program including 29 world premieres.

Increases in virtual all berlinale sections / programs could be noted this year.  Applications to participate in the Talent Campus rose to more than 4000. New program additions included NATIVe, indigenous cinema with 24 long and short form productions as well as expansion of the retrospective to premiere in Berlinale Classics restored films. This expansion seems market driven, responding on one hand to the unending appetite for more visual entertainment and the prominence of new  internet distribution platforms such as Video on Demand.  Current film industry concerns were covered by several industry seminars updating the professional audience. A promising picture for 3D features was presented which accounted in Germany already for 22% of the box office in 2012.   Video on Demand is an option explored by most players in the field, but must be customized for each market and has not yet generated significant revenue streams, except for Netflix.  The TV mini-series seminar discussion indicates possible future expansion of film festivals into television. Prominent film makers now produce high quality  television , as noted by Michael Haneke  about the US “… once upon a time television was stupid and film superb, now  it is frequently just the opposites in the US”.  For Kosslick there is “Our   offensive for international quality television  .. such as the TV-Miniseries TOP OF THE LAKE” screened at the 2013 berlinale. Further the number of awards continued to expand to reach this year 47 bestowed by official and independent juries, the public and newspapers. Among the new comers are the TEDDY award for HIV Awareness and the Cinema fairbindet [verbindet = connected] prize established by the federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Among my favorites films  are AN EPISODE IN THE LIFE OF AN IRON PICKER, a feature film from Herzegovina produced for about $23 000 not using any professional actors. Instead the poor Roma family depicted reenacts their dreadful experience of being refused medical service when facing a life threatening emergency.  IT’S ALL SO QUIET is a somber beautifully imaged film by Boyed van Hoeij from the Netherlands.  Hardly any words are exchanged in this story of this single farmer in the late fifties who cares for his bed ridden father who long’s to die and scorns his son. In its depiction of emotional and communicative isolation in the dark farm house and of the protagonist’s refusal to connect to any one the film maker develops this character in an understated manner, yet we are able to relate to him easily. The Canadian film VIC+FLO SAW A BEAR  by Denis Côté  is an original presentation of the relationship  of two ex-con female lovers living secluded in a shack in a wooded area. Moving readily between dramatic and comedic elements the plot follows their desires, aspirations and fears in a starling way with sufficient tensions. The younger Flo is bi-sexual and tracked down by another revenge seeking former convict.  The superb digitally restored version of SHOAH using the state of the art K4 technology presented in the homage to its French director Claude Lanzmann was certainly one of the principle highlights of the 2013 berlinale.  This production running  over nine hours (556 minutes to be precise) uses no archival or recreated film material  is solely based on interviews with survivors, witnesses and perpetrators as well as images of the death and concentration camps as they appeared  when Lanzmann  filmed his production  in the early 80’s.  His indiredt representation, a form of oral history, clarifies questions about the holocaust as distinct from popular TV series and films about the tragedy such as SCHINDLER’S LIST by Spielberg. A superb Marcin Malaszczak   film SIENIAWKA in the Forum program did not draw enough attention. This German production is an unusual original film and comes across as a documentary depicting life for the disabled and mentally retarded men in a rundown psychiatric facility located near in a secluded village next to the German, Check and Polish borders. The film opens with disheveled men somehow surviving in the forest and closes with a long walk by a former inmate through the village which is slowly destroyed by sinking grounds due to coal mining.  Within these brackets we follow the mostly mute in mates during winter time in their closed facility, observe their bizarre behavior, and seem to be faced by the discomfort of an apocalyptic reality. With the advent of the spring the mood shifts from the black imagery and the inmate come to life. They play imaginary games, take part in a picnic and seem to communicate somehow. The only articulate inmate takes some others to a tour of the rundown facility emphasizing that the end of communism equated with the beginning of the destruction. Overall the film’s is most disconcerting with the images of decline and gloom, and its message that there is no future for the inmate outside their institution.

The 2013 edition of the berlinale certainly met my expectations because numerous productions presented the critical reflexive cinema I favor. Further the depth of the festival’s film sections, the comprehensive nature of the market with its industry seminars, the range of independent and commercial films and the cross over into the arts is an ideal combination for any observer of the current international film scene.

I saw JACK in IMAX 3D and it was lots of fun. But if you are waiting to hear “Fee-fi-fo-fum, I smell the blood of an Englishman“, or see, as I was, the goose that lays the golden eggs or even the cow that got traded for the magical beans for that matter, director Brian Singer has cleverly re-worked the Jack and the Beanstalk origin tale.

Let’s face it, in the original fairy tale Jack is a thief and a killer. He is living with his widowed mother and their only means of income is a cow. When this cow stops giving milk, Jack is sent to the market to sell it. On the way to the market he meets an old man who offers to give him “magic” beans in exchange for the cow.

Jack takes the beans but when he arrives home without money, his mother becomes furious and throws the beans out the window. As Jack sleeps, the beans grow into a gigantic beanstalk. Jack climbs the beanstalk and arrives in a land high up in the sky where he follows a road to a house, which is the home of a giant. He enters the house and asks the giant’s wife for food. She gives him food, but the giant returns and senses that a human is nearby:

Fee-fi-fo-fum!

I smell the blood of an Englishman,

Be he alive, or be he dead,

I’ll have his bones to grind my bread.

However, Jack is hidden by the giant’s wife and steals a bag of gold coins as he makes his escape down the beanstalk. Jack repeats his journey up the beanstalk two more times, each time helped by the wife of the giant and narrowly escapes with one of the giant’s treasures. The second time, he steals a hen that laid golden eggs and the third time a magical harp that played by itself. This time, the giant follows him down the beanstalk to get his property back. Jack calls his mother for an axe and chops the beanstalk down, killing the giant. The end of the story has Jack and his mother living happily ever after with their new riches.

The story portrays a “hero” unscrupulously hiding in a man’s house, playing on his wife’s sympathies in order to rob and finally murder the owner of the house who was minding his own business.

So, how did Singer and co-screenwriters Darren Lemke, Christopher McQuarrie, and Dan Studney make this tale more PC? They did an incredibly tactful re-dressing of Jack – they dumped the coins and the hen that laid the golden eggs! Well, Jack does steal an egg – but maybe he was only borrowing it and intended to bring it back after show-and-tell at the village tavern in the Singer-McQuarrie et al version.

Jack (Nicholas Hoult) is an orphan farmer living with his uncle. When he goes to sell his uncle’s horse (the horse is vital later – cow don’t run) and carriage, a desperate monk who has stolen powerful beans from the King’s unscrupulous advisor Lord Roderick (Stanley Tucci), pleads with Jack to take the beans to a monastery for safe keeping. He tells Jack not to let the beans get wet.

King Brahmwell’s (Ian McShane) daughter Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson) runs off in a storm and finds herself in Jack’s cottage. The storm causes one bean to fall to the ground and the tree grows up under the cottage, sending Isabelle into the land of the giants. Jack wants to go and rescue Isabelle. The King sends his Guards and their leader, Elmont (Ewan McGregor), and the princess’s betrothed, Lord Roderick (Stanley Tucci), who knows the giants live in this sky kingdom and now wants to rule the giants with a magical crown and have them proclaim him king. Lord Roderick has a flunky Wicke (Ewen Bremner, who I just saw in GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD).

The community of males-only giants are led by General Fallon (Bill Nighy) who has a small head spurting from his shoulder (John Kassir) and several stand-out giants: Fee (Cornell John), Fye (Andrew Brooke), Foe (Angus Barnett) and Fumm (Ben Daniels). The most notable other giant is the cook (Philip Philmar) who has a great scene with Elmont.

Sure the giants are CGI but they were fun and well done. I absolutely loved the tree and the magnificent design of the world of the giants. I loved Hoult in the current WARM BODIES where he had to act. Tucci is always a hoot (he loves physically transforming himself) and McGregor had the sexiest costume. Tomlinson – who was photographed to look 10 years older than Jack – failed to make a strong impression but that may have been the screenplay’s fault.

I would see JACK again just for the wonderful production, direction, and terrific soundtrack.

Jack still has one bean left.

Victoria Alexander is a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association: www.bfca.org/ and the Las Vegas Film Critics Society: www.lvfcs.org/. Victoria’s weekly column, “The Devil’s Hammer,” is posted every Monday. http://www.fromthebalcony.com/editorials.php.

If you would like to be included on Victoria’s private distribution list for a weekly preview, just email her at masauu@aol.com. Victoria lives in Las Vegas, Nevada and answers every email. You can contact Victoria directly at masauu@aol.com.

Director/auteur Steven Soderbergh has declared effusively “Side Effects” will be his last feature film. What a pity for the film art as this psycho-pharmacological thriller is one of his best films to date.  It twists and turns and surprises you in ways you just could never imagine. Soderbergh who shoots and edits most of his films brings the spirit and style of Hitchcock’s “Spellbound” to the 21st Century.

The film features Roony Mara and Jude Law. Mara plays Emily Taylor, a mentally disturbed woman who suffers from severe depression and a forlorn demeanor.  Law is a psychiatrist named Jonathan Banks who exudes a caring and pragmatic personality, Channing Tatum is Martin, Emily’s husband, who has just been released from prison for insider trading and is often out seeking gainful employment.

The film, whose screenplay was written by Scott Z. Burns (“Contagion”), weaves a story about a world where ticking bomb suspense is laced with pill taking of antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, SSRIs) with dire warnings of side effects. We hear familiar names such as Effexor, Xanax, and Zoloft and a new revolutionary drug called Ablixa (“Take Back Tomorrow”) which is actually fictional. Google its name and get a real website that promotes the pic in a highly unusual way.

When Emily’s mood and shocking behavior enters the realm of criminal behavior the film explores issues of responsibility.  Who is responsible for a drug which exacerbates a sick mind?  Does the medical doctor who prescribes a drug assume liability for the actions of his/her patient?  These and other issues make a consistently entertaining film which is carried to a satisfying conclusion. The acting of all is excellent but the true breakthrough performance belongs to Roony Mara who exhibits a range of performance which is remarkable in its ability to convey emotion.

“Side Effects” is the first significant film released nationwide of the New Year.

Vijay & Sonja Goli

If you’re a filmmaker, producer and/or writer looking for investors to possibly provide funds for the film your hoping to make, Media Society is the place to be. This is a diverse, interesting, eclectic group of people (Media Society members) who are looking for projects to invest in.

Bill & Christine Dwyer

Media Society’s two-evening Soiree took place the first weekend of Sundance, I could only make it Saturday night, but their cocktails, hors d’oeuvres and sit down dinner was a class act that also happened Friday night, too. Media Society’s reception is all about cross-pollinating and networking. I met movie investors from Boston, Washington DC, Las Vegas all over the U.S. that are partners with Media Society.

Jeff & Lauretta Skigen

So if you happen to be in Park City, Utah for Sundance 2014 make it your business to contact the powers that be at Media Society and ask if you can attend their excellent event.

Park City, UT- During the 2013 Sundance Film Festival, the Co-President of Film Independent, Josh Welsh, took time out of his busy schedule to meet with Film Festival Today and discuss many topics including the upcoming Spirit Awards.  Here is what Josh had to say:

Film Festival Today: For our audience members who don’t know, you (Josh Welsh) are the lead singer in a band called Meatyard and enjoy making music during your spare time.  When is Meatyard going to release a new album?

Josh Welsh: (laughs) I don’t know.  I love it. Sometime we’ll do another one.  I don’t have a recording date set but I’m in the process of writing new songs.  I love doing it and a lot of the musicians I’ve played with, I met through work.  They’re mostly filmmakers who like to make music on the side.

FFT: What is Film Independent?

JW: Film Independent is a non-profit organization based in Los Angeles.  We’re an open access membership organization.  Anyone can join.  Our membership is several thousand strong, mainly in Southern California but we’ve had people join from all over the country and internationally as well. It’s a great way to stay connected in the independent film community and there are membership benefits as well.  Our membership is made up of working filmmakers, aspiring filmmakers, and also film lovers.  Our mission is to help film makers get their films made.  We’re there to support filmmakers and to nurture them.  The other part of it is to get their films out into the world.  The bar to getting your film made has come down a great deal with new technologies.  The real challenge for a filmmaker today is getting people to see their films.  With the changes in distribution, I think it’s an exciting time but it’s also very challenging for film makers, but that’s where Film Independent comes in to try and get a film to reach a broad audience.

FFT: What type of stuff do you do to reach out to an audience?

JW: On promoting an independent film, there are three or four things I would do.  First thing is, we produce the Los Angeles Film Festival. It takes place every year in L.A.  This year it’s June 13^th- 23^rd.  We screen many great films including independent films, some big studio films, some documentaries, and music videos.  Our programing team is here now looking at films we could possibly screen.  So that’s a fantastic program in the festival world for getting everything out to an audience.  Last year, we took over the cinema program at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.  That is almost like doing a year round festival in Los Angeles.  Every week, we screen something at LACMA.  We also, give out a cash grant at the Spirit Awards called the Jameson Find Your Audience Award.  It’s a $50,000 grant that goes to a filmmaker who made a film in the last year but it just hasn’t quite found its audience yet.  This year we gave it to a filmmaker Laura Colella who made a fantastic narrative called, “Breakfast with Curtis.”  Along with the grant, we are giving her an ongoing guidance and mentorship.  Another program we have, is an artist development program where we work with filmmakers in filmmaker labs. In the labs we take films makers that have features in the process of setting it up or getting it made.  We have a screen writing lab, directing, and producing.  We have ten films that are graduates of those programs at Sundance this year.

FFT: What are you planning on doing in Park City besides seeing films?

JW: This is such a great celebration in independent cinema and it’s so invigorating for me, but every year we throw a party to celebrate with the filmmakers that we’ve worked with that have films in the festival.  We’re so proud to see the graduates from our programs here and it’s really great for them to premiere their films to audience for the first time so we’re happy to celebrate it.  I can mention a couple of the titles.  One is a film called “C.O.G.” that premiered last night and it’s based on a book by David Sedaris.  That’s one of our films that came out of our film-financing program.  Another film we’ve worked with is “The Spectacular Now.”  It’s a beautiful film.  The two lead performances are so good.  It’s so beautifully acted and written.  The writers of it wrote “500 Days of Summer.”

FFT: Are there any other films involved with Film Independent that are at Sundance right now?

JW: Another one is a film called “May in the Summer” by Cherien Dabis.  Cherien was in our directing lab back in 2005 where she made her first feature.  She actually acts in the movie as well and she’s an incredible actress.  Sometimes you get a little nervous when a writer/director decides to be in their film but with her, she totally inhabits the character and she’s great on screen.  She didn’t go through our programs with this feature but we did give her a grant.  The cool thing at Sundance this year is that half the films are made by women directors.  At Film Independent, one of the keys to our mission is celebrating diversity of voices because we really try to get behind filmmakers of all different parts of the country, really including women filmmakers.  It’s really gratifying to see so many women here.

FFT: That’s probably why so many of your films get into Sundance because Sundance celebrates that same type of diversity as well.

JW: Yes, exactly.  It’s a very good fit.

FFT: I’m wondering, are there any well-known films that premiered at previous Sundance Film Festivals that Film Independent was involved with?

JW: Yeah, there’s “Frozen River.”  “Frozen River” went through our fast track financing market a couple of years ago.  “Ballast” is a film we worked with that won the director award at Sundance as well as cinematography.  We also have filmmakers that come here with shorts and then go on to do features.  In fact, that’s what Cherien did.

FFT: You mentioned a little bit about the Spirit Awards.  Is there anything else you’d like to add on it, such as the films that are nominated for it this February?

JW: Sure. So the Spirit Awards are the celebration of the best of American Cinema over the past 12 months.  This year, the awards take place on February 23^rd and it’s broadcasted on IFC.  We’re in our 20^th year of the show and it’s a party.  It’s a celebration of great filmmaking.  2012, in my opinion, was a really strong year for independent film.  We’re very excited about the nominations.  So the big nominees this year are “Beasts of the Southern Wild.”  That did extremely well with nominations, but we also have Matthew McConaughey for two nominations.  One for “Magic Mike” the other for “Killer Joe.”

FFT: Good!  I was so mad he was snubbed by The Academy this year, so it’s good that someone’s appreciating his work.

JW: This year was the year of McConaughey.  There’s another film that was at Sundance last year called “Keep the Lights On” that got several nominations as well.  “Moonrise Kingdom” got nominated for the script.  At the Spirit Awards, we focus on lower budget films.  There’s not a budget cap but we generally look at things under $20 million.  It’s just a totally fun show.  We hold the awards under a huge tent on the beach in Santa Monica.  It’s elegant but people just kick back and have fun.  Plus you see a lot of the same people there that you’ll see at the Oscars.  I think there’s an overlap of about eight films that were nominated by the Oscars as well as by us.  To me, that just shows the strength of independent film.  Honestly, that is the heart of American cinema right now.  It’s where the really compelling and original voices are.  Another film I should mention is “Silver Linings Playbook.”  That got many nominations.  At the Spirit Awards, we have specific awards for very low budget films.  The nominees for these awards have all made films for under $500,000.

FFT: Are there any films that you’ve seen at this year’s Sundance that you think could be a contender for next year’s Spirit Awards?

JW: I absolutely do.  I’ve seen a lot of films here that I’ve been very impressed with.  Really, “The Spectacular Now” just kind of took my breath away when I saw it.  There’s a documentary that I saw that was so fantastic, “20 Feet from Stardom.”  It’s an incredibly inspirational film about back-up singers.  I have not seen “Fruitvale” but I’ve heard incredible things about it.  That’s one of the fun things about Sundance.  It’s fun and frustrating at the same time to come and you hear all the buzz about something that people are liking and responding to but I only get to see a fraction of those films.

FFT: What else is on your agenda for 2013?

JW: We have a full slate of programs for our filmmaker labs.  The big thing on our agenda is the 2013 L.A. Film Festival.  We are out in full force watching films and putting the program together.  The director of the festival is Stephanie Allain.  This is her second year running the festival.  She came up as a producer and now she’s in running the festival and she just brings tons of fresh energy to expand and grow the festival.

FFT: So you have many grant programs that you give to independent filmmakers.  What sort of things do you look for in a filmmaker before you decide to give them a grant?

JW: Great question.  Each year we give out between $200 and $300 thousand dollars of cash grants to filmmakers and each one has a little bit different of criteria but as a general note, we tell filmmakers to have their script in the best possible shape.  Sometimes film makers send in a rough draft where it’s not where they want it to be but they’re trying to meet the deadline so they send out work that’s not really ready to share.  Get your scripts as absolutely strong as you can before you share it because it’s hard to get people to read it a second time.  The other thing is, the more prepared the film maker can be, the more comfortable we are giving them a cash grant because at the end of the day, we are there to support them, but the film maker needs to thing entrepreneurially and convince us that they know what they’re doing and they’re going to put the money towards good use.  There’s been many times where we get a strong script and we thing it’s great, but then you read the filmmaker’s plan and it’s just not thought out.  That’s really frustrating because we want to get behind that script but they are not ready and we know they won’t succeed with their current plan so they don’t get the grant.

FFT: Would you ever want to buy a script and give it to a more prepared filmmaker?

JW: Well we’re not a production company.  We’re a non-profit so we would never buy a script, but one thing we do like to do is connect people.  We have about 4,000 members and about 80 film makers going through our programs so that is an enormous opportunity for film makers to meet and cross pollinate.  It’s a community that supports each other because making films is hard but it’s also a community of fine collaborators and most frequently, it’s connecting a writer or director with a producer.  I love doing that.  It’s like dating.  If a director comes to me and says, “I’m ready to go and ready to meet a producer,” I will introduce them to like ten different producers and it’s a matter of what’s a good fit.  Ultimately, they need to date and see if it’s a good fit.  That’s a key part of what we do.

FFT: You just mentioned that you connect many filmmakers with agents and producers, how did Film Independent build this vast amount of resources?

JW: Well, we’ve been around since 1981 and we have a good reputation in the industry.  What agents and producers are looking for, there’s so much material out in the world and often at times, what they appreciate are filters.  Whether it’s us or Sundance or any other organization, having someone that can filter through all this material and tell the Industry what is great, is really appreciated.  That’s one of our functions.  Our financing market is so small and curated, that we do not have a problem with getting people from the Industry to come out and meet our filmmakers.  Over the course of our fast track, a filmmaker will leave with about 60 executives or agents and those execs are eager to meet these filmmakers when they hear about these projects.  They know it’s a very small group and we’re not going to waste their time.  They know that our projects our ready to go and I think that’s how we’ve established that broad amount of resources.

FFT: I saw you were trying to build a partnership with Fox Studios.  How’s that been going?

JW: It’s great.  Fantastic.  We’re in the second year of that.  It’s a really exciting, new direction for us.  Two years ago, we created that partnership with Fox to create a program called “Fox Writers Intensive.”  That program is a four-month screen writing intensive lab where we take ten writers; Film Independent oversees the selection of writers and curriculum design and basically writers come into that and they’re working on features as well as television.  Over this four-month program, they work on developing their scripts and have one on ones with many Fox execs.  Fox is in the same position as us.  They want to meet new talent.  The other thing that’s unique about this program is that it’s not for completely inexperienced writers.  To be in this program, you have to have one feature script that’s been produced, or have worked in television, or have some other creative accomplishment such as written a novel or play.  The writers that come in have serious talent but they’re at a point in their career where this type of program is a benefit.  The other thing that comes out of that is Fox buys one screenplay out of that program and their goal is to staff the writers that come out of that.  It’s a great partnership.

FFT:  Good, I’m glad to hear that.  So besides having the most sound script possible and being prepared, is there any other advice you’d like to give to struggling filmmakers out there?

JW: Give us a call.  Any struggling filmmaker, get to know the organizations out there that can help you.  I work at Film Independent so I say call us, but there are other organizations out there as well.  With film making, like I said, you have to be entrepreneurial.  No one is going to do it for you.  I sometimes meet young filmmakers who focus all their energy on getting an agent or manager.  That can be helpful, I’m not denying that.  But ultimately, the filmmaker really has to get stuff made and sometimes they aren’t focused on that.  So find good collaborators, friends who can help you, find organizations like Film Independent to be there and have your back.  Also, be persistent as hell.

FFT: What type of ways can people contact Film Independent or yourself?

JW: Go to our website, www.filmindependent.org. Our website gives a good array of programs that we have and all of our email addresses are on there.  So feel free to contact me directly or one of our other staff members.  We’re really an open access organization.  We want people to come to us.  Join!  It’s $95 for a one-year membership.  We want you to come in and use our resources as much as possible.  We have casting rooms, production facilities, and many people who can help filmmakers.  So the more a member wants to utilize us, quite honestly that’s what makes us happy.  There’s no such thing as calling us too often.  We find the people who call us the most, are the people who get their films made.  And once you get your film made, we want you to come back and be a mentor for other filmmakers.  It’s a continuing cycle.

FFT:  Josh, thank you so much.  It was a pleasure meeting you.

JW:  Of course.  Thank you!

Be sure to keep checking Film Festival Today for more interviews and coverage of the 2013 Sundance Film Festival and be sure to tune into the Spirit Awards on February 23^rd on IFC.

Photo by Gustavo Caballero/Getty Images for Udi’s Gluten Free Table

It might sound hard to believe, but the best meals I had during Sundance 2013 was at Udi’s Gluten Free restaurant in Park City, Utah. At first I was hesitant to even go to a Gluten free store, but after Udi’s persistent publicist got me to show up, I’m glad I did. I was so impressed with the food and the overall vibe of the restaurants decor and staff, that I asked the publicist if I could do a Q&A with the powers that be at Udi’s.

1. What is Udi’s Gluten Free company?

Udi’s is on a mission to offer everyone the freedom to choose delicious gluten-free foods.  Udi’s tastes just as good, if not better than conventional products filled with gluten. In providing a diverse, growing range of gluten free products – such as breads, rolls and buns, bagels, granola, cookies, pizza, cookies and muffins – Udi’s brings joy to gluten-free food, brings joy to gluten-free families, and brings joy to a gluten-free life. Delivering on the promise of delicious food without deprivation has made Udi’s the gluten-free category leader in North America.

2. What is Gluten? is it bad for humans? Are some people allergic?

Gluten is the protein found in wheat, barley, rye and related wheat species such as spelt and kamut.   It helps baked goods keep their form and chewy texture and is also added to other food items more and more, both for consistency and taste purposes. Gluten can be a huge energy drain on our system, it leaves our stomachs irritated and our bodies drained. The amount of processed wheat and gluten in our food today can be too much for our digestive system.

People who have diagnosed sensitivities to gluten can range in severity, from those with a mild intolerance to those with Celiac Disease who cannot process gluten at all and suffer severe consequences. Celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder where gluten triggers the immune system to attack the lining of the small intestine.

3. Is there a gluten free movement? If yes, what is it, and who is a part of it?

VP of Marketing at Udi’s Granola and Gluten Free Foods Denise Sirovatka and TV personality Mario Lopez attend Udi’s Gluten Free Cafe on January 18, 2013 in Park City, Utah. (Photo by Gustavo Caballero/Getty Images for Udi’s Gluten Free Table)

More than 21 million U.S. households are eating gluten free. This lifestyle is no longer just for sick people, characterized by deterring medical jargon like “Celiac disease” and “gluten intolerance.”   More and more people in all age groups and demographics are finding it’s a long-term solution for a healthier, happier life. A 2010 study showed a majority of committed gluten free consumers, 45 percent, are self-diagnosed. These consumers have figured out on their own that maintaining a gluten free diet makes them feel better, but have not been officially diagnosed with a gluten-sensitivity.

The trend does seem to be led by the health-conscious West Coast with progressive foodies and celebrity trendsetters. For instance, Google searches for “gluten free” for West Coast cities such as Portland, Seattle and San Francisco index 20–30 points higher than East Coast cities like New York, Boston and Washington, D.C. And, celebrities were already actively speaking out about the lifestyle, from talk show host Elisabeth Hasselbeck and President Bill Clinton to actress Jenny McCarthy and NFL quarterback Drew Brees. Chelsea Clinton even had a gluten free cake at her wedding.

Between 2004 and 2010, the gluten-free category in the U.S. grew by 28 percent, and projections indicate an estimated 16 percent increase from 2010-2015, making it a $5.5 billion-dollar industry.

4. Why does Udi’s have a presence in Park City, Utah during the Sundance film festival?

Building relationships with Hollywood tastemakers at Sundance gives Udi’s the chance to exchange trend-setting ideas and stay at the forefront of the gluten free movement The growing number of gluten free celebrities here exemplify what it means to live a full, happy gluten free life as you travel, ski, work and still remain health conscious. Udi’s helps make that possible for stars and consumers alike by providing delicious, wholesome gluten free options.

5. What type of dairy free food is on the menu that you’re offering to Sundance goers?·                Garden Stuffed Tomato with Udi’s Bread Crumbs

·                Trio of Hummus, White Bean Dip, and Eggplant Tapenade served with a basket of Udi’s Whole Grain Dinner Rolls and Toasted Baguette

·                Gourmet Burger on Udi’s Gluten Free Bun served with House-made Pickled Red Onions, Tomato, Lettuce, Sauteed Mushrooms, Caramelized Onions and Candied Bacon

6. What type of social media is your company doing?

Udi’s has the largest gluten free Facebook community with nearly 1 million fans and counting. In fact, across all channels, more than half of online conversations about gluten free mention Udi’s. Currently, Udi’s manages large, engaged and loyal communities on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google Plus, Pinterest and a blog. In all cases, people following a gluten free lifestyle share stories, recipes, challenges and joys, and participate in fun contests or promotions from the brand.   For example, at Sundance, the social media team offered exclusive invites to Udi’s Gluten Free table where people could enjoy a gluten free meal alongside celebs.

7. Udi’s have any new gluten free food coming out this year?

Udi’s plans to launch approximately 20 new products in 2013.

John Cooper, Director of the Sundance Film Festival, said, “The films at our Festival this year truly reflect the unbridled passion, immense talent and diverse stories coming from the independent filmmaking community. I am confident that the awards presented this evening will fuel those films with special promise and that audiences will continue to champion the films they have discovered here.”

“The lively dialogue and genuine excitement sparked by the films over the past 10 days is sure to resonate as they further reach audiences in the weeks and months ahead,” commented Keri Putnam, Executive Director of Sundance Institute. “We congratulate and thank all of the filmmakers who shared their stories with us, and we look forward to continuing to support them.”

The 2013 Sundance Film Festival Awards presented this evening were:

The U.S. Grand Jury Prize: Documentary was presented by Davis Guggenheim to:

Blood Brother / U.S.A. (Director: Steve Hoover) — Rocky went to India as a disillusioned tourist. When he met a group of children with HIV, he decided to stay. He never could have imagined the obstacles he would face, or the love he would find.

The U.S. Grand Jury Prize: Dramatic was presented by Tom Rothman to:

Fruitvale / U.S.A. (Director and screenwriter: Ryan Coogler) — The true story of Oscar, a 22-year-old Bay Area resident who crosses paths with friends, enemies, family and strangers on the last day of 2008. Cast: Michael B. Jordan, Octavia Spencer, Melonie Diaz, Ahna O’Reilly, Kevin Durand, Chad Michael Murray.

The World Cinema Grand Jury Prize: Documentary was presented by Bob Hawk to:

A River Changes Course / Cambodia, U.S.A. (Director: Kalyanee Mam) — Three young Cambodians struggle to overcome the crushing effects of deforestation, overfishing, and overwhelming debt in this devastatingly beautiful story of a country reeling from the tragedies of war and rushing to keep pace with a rapidly expanding world.

The World Cinema Grand Jury Prize: Dramatic was presented Anurag Kashyap to:

Jiseul / South Korea (Director and screenwriter: Muel O) — In 1948, as the Korean government ordered the Communists’ eviction to Jeju Island, the military invaded a calm and peaceful village. Townsfolk took sanctuary in a cave and debated moving to a higher mountain. Cast: Min-chul SUNG, Jung-won YANG, Young-soon OH, Soon-dong PARK, Suk-bum MOON, Kyung-sub JANG.

The Audience Award: U.S. Documentary presented by Acura, was presented by Barbara Kopple to:

Blood Brother / U.S.A. (Director: Steve Hoover) — Rocky went to India as a disillusioned tourist. When he met a group of children with HIV, he decided to stay. He never could have imagined the obstacles he would face, or the love he would find.

The Audience Award: U.S. Dramatic presented by Acura, was presented by Mariel Hemingway to:

Fruitvale / U.S.A. (Director and screenwriter: Ryan Coogler) — The true story of Oscar, a 22-year-old Bay Area resident who crosses paths with friends, enemies, family and strangers on the last day of 2008. Cast: Michael B. Jordan, Octavia Spencer, Melonie Diaz, Ahna O’Reilly, Kevin Durand, Chad Michael Murray.

The Audience Award: World Cinema Documentary was presented by Barbara Kopple to:

The Square (Al Midan) / Egypt, U.S.A. (Director: Jehane Noujaim) — What does it mean to risk your life for your ideals? How far will five revolutionaries go in defending their beliefs in the fight for their nation?

The Audience Award: World Cinema Dramatic was presented by Mariel Hemingway to:

Metro Manila / United Kingdom, Philippines (Director: Sean Ellis, Screenwriters: Sean Ellis, Frank E. Flowers) — Seeking a better life, Oscar and his family move from the poverty-stricken rice fields to the big city of Manila, where they fall victim to various inhabitants whose manipulative ways are a daily part of city survival. Cast: Jake Macapagal, John Arcilla, Althea Vega.

The Audience Award: Best of NEXT <=> was presented by Joseph Gordon-Levitt to:

This is Martin Bonner / U.S.A.(Director and screenwriter: Chad Hartigan) — Martin Bonner has just moved to Reno for a new job in prison rehabilitation. Starting over at age 58, he struggles to adapt until an unlikely friendship with an ex-con blossoms, helping him confront the problems he left behind. Cast: Paul Eenhoorn, Richmond Arquette, Sam Buchanan, Robert Longstreet, Demetrius Grosse.

The Directing Award: U.S. Documentary was presented by Liz Garbus to:

Cutie and the Boxer / U.S.A. (Director: Zachary Heinzerling) — This candid New York love story explores the chaotic 40-year marriage of famed boxing painter Ushio Shinohara and his wife, Noriko. Anxious to shed her role of assistant to her overbearing husband, Noriko seeks an identity of her own.

The Directing Award: U.S. Dramatic was presented by Ed Burns to:

Afternoon Delight / U.S.A. (Director and screenwriter: Jill Soloway) — In this sexy, dark comedy, a lost L.A. housewife puts her idyllic life in jeopardy when she tries to rescue a stripper by taking her in as a live-in nanny. Cast: Kathryn Hahn, Juno Temple, Josh Radnor, Jane Lynch.

The Directing Award: World Cinema Documentary was presented by Enat Sidi to:

The Machine Which Makes Everything Disappear / Georgia, Germany (Director: Tinatin Gurchiani) — A film director casting a 15-23-year-old protagonist visits villages and cities to meet people who answer her call. She follows those who prove to be interesting enough through various dramatic and funny situations

The Directing Award: World Cinema Dramatic was presented by Nadine Labaki to:

Crystal Fairy / Chile (Director and screenwriter: Sebastián Silva) — Jamie invites a stranger to join a road trip to Chile. The woman’s free and esoteric nature clashes with Jamie’s acidic, self-absorbed personality as they head into the desert for a Mescaline-fueled psychedelic trip. Cast: Michael Cera, Gaby Hoffmann, Juan Andrés Silva, José Miguel Silva, Agustín Silva.

The Waldo Salt Screenwriting Award: U.S. Dramatic was presented by Wesley Morris to:

In a World… / U.S.A. (Director and screenwriter: Lake Bell) — An underachieving vocal coach is motivated by her father, the king of movie-trailer voice-overs, to pursue her aspirations of becoming a voiceover star. Amidst pride, sexism and family dysfunction, she sets out to change the voice of a generation. Cast: Lake Bell, Demetri Martin, Rob Corddry, Michaela Watkins, Ken Marino, Fred Melamed.

The Screenwriting Award: World Cinema Dramatic was presented by Joana Vicente to:

Wajma (An Afghan Love Story) / Afghanistan (Director and screenwriter: Barmak Akram) — A young man in Kabul seduces a girl. When she tells him she’s pregnant, he questions having taken her virginity. Then her father arrives, and a timeless, archaic violence erupts – possibly leading to a crime, and even a sacrifice. Cast: Wajma Bahar, Mustafa Habibi, Haji Gul, Breshna Bahar.

The Editing Award: U.S. Documentary was presented by Gary Hustwit to:

Gideon’s Army / U.S.A. (Director: Dawn Porter) — Gideon’s Army follows three young, committed Public Defenders who are dedicated to working for the people society would rather forget. Long hours, low pay and staggering caseloads are so common that even the most committed often give up.

The Editing Award: World Cinema Documentary was presented by Enat Sidi to:

The Summit / Ireland, United Kingdom (Director: Nick Ryan) — Twenty-four climbers converged at the last stop before summiting the most dangerous mountain on Earth. Forty-eight hours later, 11 had been killed or simply vanished. Had one, Ger McDonnell, stuck to the climbers’ code, he might still be alive.

The Cinematography Award: U.S. Documentary was presented by Brett Morgen to:

Dirty Wars / U.S.A. (Director: Richard Rowley) — Investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill chases down the truth behind America’s covert wars.

The Cinematography Award: U.S. Dramatic was presented by Rodrigo Prieto to:

Bradford Young for Ain’t Them Bodies Saints and Mother of George:

•             Ain’t Them Bodies Saints / U.S.A. (Director and screenwriter: David Lowery) — The tale of an outlaw who escapes from prison and sets out across the Texas hills to reunite with his wife and the daughter he has never met. Cast: Rooney Mara, Casey Affleck, Ben Foster, Nate Parker, Keith Carradine.

•             Mother of George / U.S.A. (Director: Andrew Dosunmu, Screenwriter: Darci Picoult) — A story about a woman willing to do anything and risk everything for her marriage. Cast: Isaach De Bankolé, Danai Gurira, Tony Okungbowa, Yaya Alafia, Bukky Ajayi.

The Cinematography Award: World Cinema Documentary was presented by Sean Farnel to:

Who is Dayani Cristal? / United Kingdom (Director: Marc Silver) — An anonymous body in the Arizona desert sparks the beginning of a real-life human drama. The search for its identity leads us across a continent to seek out the people left behind and the meaning of a mysterious tattoo.

The Cinematography Award: World Cinema Dramatic was presented by Nadine Labaki to:

Lasting / Poland, Spain (Director and screenwriter: Jacek Borcuch) — An emotional love story about two Polish students who fall in love with each other while working summer jobs in Spain. An unexpected nightmare interrupts their carefree time in the heavenly landscape and throws their lives into chaos. Cast: Jakub Gierszal, Magdalena Berus, Angela Molina.

A U.S. Documentary Special Jury Award for Achievement in Filmmaking was presented by Diane Weyermann to:

Inequality for All / U.S.A. (Director: Jacob Kornbluth) — In this timely and entertaining documentary, noted economic-policy expert Robert Reich distills the topic of widening income inequality, and addresses the question of what effects this increasing gap has on our economy and our democracy.

A U.S. Documentary Special Jury Award for Achievement in Filmmaking was presented by Diane Weyermann to:

American Promise / U.S.A. (Directors: Joe Brewster, Michèle Stephenson) — This intimate documentary follows the 12-year journey of two African-American families pursuing the promise of opportunity through the education of their sons.

A U.S. Dramatic Special Jury Award for Acting was presented by Clare Stewart to:

Miles Teller and Shailene Woodley in The Spectacular Now / U.S.A. (Director: James Ponsoldt, Screenwriters: Scott Neustadter, Michael H. Weber) — Sutter is a high school senior who lives for the moment; Aimee is the introvert he attempts to “save.” As their relationship deepens, the lines between right and wrong, friendship and love, and “saving” and corrupting become inextricably blurred. Cast: Miles Teller, Shailene Woodley, Brie Larson, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Kyle Chandler.

A U.S. Dramatic Special Jury Award for Sound Design was presented by Clare Stewart to:

Shane Carruth and Johnny Marshall for Upstream Color / U.S.A. (Director and screenwriter: Shane Carruth) — A man and woman are drawn together, entangled in the life cycle of an ageless organism. Identity becomes an illusion as they struggle to assemble the loose fragments of wrecked lives. Cast: Amy Seimetz, Shane Carruth, Andrew Sensenig, Thiago Martins.

A World Cinema Dramatic Special Jury Award was presented by Joana Vicente to:

Circles / Serbia, Germany, France, Croatia, Slovenia (Director: Srdan Golubovic, Screenwriters: Srdjan Koljevic, Melina Pota Koljevic) — Five people are affected by a tragic heroic act. Twenty years later, all of them will confront the past through their own crises. Will they overcome guilt, frustration and their urge for revenge? Will they do the right thing, at all costs? Cast: Aleksandar Bercek, Leon Lucev, Nebojsa Glogovac, Hristina Popovic, Nikola Rakocevic, Vuk Kostic.

A World Cinema Documentary Special Jury Award for Punk Spirit was presented by Sean Farnel to:

Pussy Riot – A Punk Prayer / Russian Federation, United Kingdom (Directors: Mike Lerner, Maxim Pozdorovkin) — Three young women face seven years in a Russian prison for a satirical performance in a Moscow cathedral. But who is really on trial: the three young artists or the society they live in?

The Short Film Audience Award, Presented by YouTube, based on web traffic for 12 short films that screened at the Festival and were featured on The Screening Room, was presented to:

Catnip: Egress to Oblivion? / U.S.A.(Director: Jason Willis) — Catnip is all the rage with today’s modern feline, but do we really understand it? This film frankly discusses the facts about this controversial substance.

The following awards were presented at separate ceremonies at the Festival:

Jury prizes and honorable mentions in short filmmaking were presented at a ceremony in Park City, Utah on January 22. The Short Film Grand Jury Prize was awarded to The Whistle / Poland (Director: Grzegorz Zariczny). The Short Film Jury Award: U.S. Fiction was presented to Whiplash / U.S.A. (Director and screenwriter: Damien Chazelle). The Short Film Jury Award: International Fiction was presented to The Date / Finland (Director and screenwriter: Jenni Toivoniemi). The Short Film Jury Award: Non-fiction was presented to Skinningrove / U.S.A. (Director: Michael Almereyda). The Short Film Jury Award: Animation was presented to Irish Folk Furniture / Ireland (Director: Tony Donoghue). A Short Film Special Jury Award for Acting was presented to Joel Nagle in Palimpsest / U.S.A. (Director: Michael Tyburski, Screenwriters: Michael Tyburski, Ben Nabors). A Short Film Special Jury Award was presented to Until the Quiet Comes / U.S.A. (Director and screenwriter: Kahlil Joseph).

The winning directors and projects of the Sundance Institute | Mahindra Global Filmmaking Award, in recognition and support of emerging independent filmmakers from around the world, are: Sarthak Dasgupta, The Music Teacher (India); Jonas Carpignano, A Chjana (Italy/U.S.); Aly Muritiba, The Man Who Killed My Beloved Dead (Brazil); and Vendela Vida & Eva Weber, Let The Northern Lights Erase Your Name (UK/Germany/U.S.).

The Sundance/NHK International Filmmaker Award, honoring and supporting emerging filmmakers, was presented to Kentaro Hagiwara, director of the upcoming film Spectacled Tiger.

The winning documentaries of the second annual Hilton Worldwide LightStay Sustainability Awards, selected by the Sundance Institute Documentary Film Program and Fund with Hilton Worldwide, were: Revolutionary Optimists (Directors: Nicole Newnham and Maren Grainger-Monsen) and Hungry (Director: Sandy McLeod). An honorable mention was awarded to Studio H (Director: Patrick Creadon), and the short film Jungle Fish (Director: Louisiana Kreutz) received $5,000.

The 2013 Indian Paintbrush Producer’s Award and $10,000 grant was presented to Toby Halbrooks and James M. Johnston for Ain’t Them Bodies Saints.

The Alfred P. Sloan Feature Film Prize, presented to outstanding feature films focusing on science or technology as a theme, or depicting a scientist, engineer, or mathematician as a major character, was presented to Computer Chess, directed and written by Andrew Bujalski. The film received a $20,000 cash award from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

The 2013 Sundance Film Festival Jurors were: U.S. Documentary Competition: Liz Garbus, Davis Guggenheim, Gary Hustwit, Brett Morgen, Diane Weyermann; U.S. Dramatic Competition: Ed Burns, Wesley Morris, Rodrigo Prieto, Tom Rothman, Clare Stewart; World Cinema Documentary Competition: Sean Farnel, Robert Hawk, Enat Sidi; World Cinema Dramatic Competition: Anurag Kashyap, Nadine Labaki, Joana Vicente; Alfred P. Sloan Award: Jon Amiel, Paula Apsell, Darren Aronofsky, Scott Z. Burns, Dr. André Fenton, Dr. Lisa Randall; Short Film Competition: Mike Farah, Don Hertzfeldt, Magali Simard.

The 2013 Sundance Film Festival presented 119 feature-length films, representing 32 countries and 51 first-time filmmakers (including 27 in competition), and 65 short films. These films were selected from a record 12,146 submissions (429 more than for 2012), including 4,044 feature-length films and 8,102 short films. 103 feature films at the Festival were world premieres.

The 2013 Sundance Film Festival runs through January 27 in Park City, Salt Lake City, Ogden and Sundance, Utah. A complete list of films and events is available at www.sundance.org/festival.

PARK CITY – JANUARY 24, 2013

• Every 2013 Slamdance film will receive a complimentary 1-year Vimeo PRO account as a thanks for all of their hard work and continued creativity.
• All Slamdance winners receive exclusive Slamdance Carhartt jackets courtesy of Carhartt.
• The Audience Award Winner for Best Feature Narrative receives a Movie Magic Budgeting and Scheduling software bundle.
• The Grand Jury Award Winner for Feature Narrative receives a $3,500 credit for law services from Pierce Law Group.
• The Grand Jury Award Winner for Feature Doc receives a $3,500 credit for law services from Pierce Law Group.
• The Kodak Award for Best Cinematography Winner receives 5,000 feet of either 16mm or 35mm film from Kodak.

Park City, UT

This year’s Short Film program is comprised of 65 short films selected from a record 8,102 submissions. The Short Film jurors are: Mike Farah, President of Production for Funny or Die; Don Hertzfeldt, Academy Award® nominated American independent filmmaker; and Magali Simard, short film programmer for the Toronto International Film Festival.
The Short Film program at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival is presented by YouTube. Twelve short films from the 2013 Festival are featured on The Screening Room, a YouTube channel curated by Sundance Institute. After the Festival, the Institute will continue to curate The Screening Room, highlighting short films each week.

Trevor Groth, Director of Programming for the Sundance Film Festival, said, “Our Short Film program this year represented a broad range of extraordinary short filmmaking talent, showcasing the diverse approaches to storytelling that one can achieve with limited time. The short film awards further distinguish those that pushed the medium in new directions and affected audiences in powerful and lasting ways.”

Short film award recipients will also be honored at the Festival’s feature film Awards Ceremony, hosted by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, on Saturday, January 26 at 7:00 p.m. MT and live-streamed at www.sundance.org/festival.

The 2013 Sundance Film Festival runs through January 27 in Park City, Salt Lake City, Ogden and Sundance, Utah. A complete list of films and events is available at www.sundance.org/festival.

The Short Film Grand Jury Prize was awarded to:

The Whistle / Poland (Director: Grzegorz Zariczny) — Marcin, a lowest-leagues football referee who lives in a small town near Krakow, dreams of better times. At his mother’s urging, he decides to change his life and find himself a girlfriend and a better job.

The Short Film Jury Award: U.S. Fiction was presented to:

Whiplash / U.S.A. (Director and screenwriter: Damien Chazelle) — An aspiring drummer enters an elite conservatory’s top jazz orchestra.

The Short Film Jury Award: International Fiction was presented to:

The Date / Finland (Director and screenwriter: Jenni Toivoniemi) — Tino’s manhood is put to the test in front of two women when he has to host a date for Diablo, the family’s stud cat.

The Short Film Jury Award: Non-fiction was presented to:

Skinningrove / U.S.A. (Director: Michael Almereyda) — Photographer Chris Killip shares unpublished images chronicling time spent among the fiercely independent residents of a remote English fishing village.

The Short Film Jury Award: Animation was presented to:

Irish Folk Furniture / Ireland (Director: Tony Donoghue) — In Ireland, old hand-painted furniture is often associated with hard times, with poverty, and with a time many would rather forget. In this animated documentary, 16 pieces of traditional folk furniture are repaired and returned home.

A Short Film Special Jury Award for Acting was presented to:

Joel Nagle in: Palimpsest / U.S.A. (Director: Michael Tyburski, Screenwriters: Michael Tyburski, Ben Nabors) — A successful house tuner provides clients with a unique form of therapy that examines subtle details in their living spaces.

A Short Film Special Jury Award was presented to:

Until the Quiet Comes / U.S.A. (Director and screenwriter: Kahlil Joseph) — Shot in the Nickerson Gardens housing projects in Watts, Los Angeles, this film deals with themes of violence, camaraderie and spirituality through the lens of magical realism.

The Bertha Foundation, BRITDOC, Cinereach, Film Independent, the Independent Filmmaker Project and the San Francisco Film Society will each select films that they have supported to receive access to best-in-class digital distribution arrangements that have been negotiated by Sundance Institute Artist Services. These services are targeted for filmmakers who intend to pursue an independent release plan. In support of these filmmakers, the Institute will curate submitted films and work closely each organization, the filmmakers, and exclusive aggregation partner Cinedigm – New Video to develop independent distribution strategies. Furthermore, each organization will work with the Institute to expand educational opportunities to their alumni building on the model of the Artist Services Workshop that takes place each year during the Sundance Film Festival.

“Now more than ever filmmakers need to be creative and entrepreneurial in order to get their stories to audiences. Sundance Institute embraces cross-organizational collaboration in an effort to increase the collective impact on the field; it is in this spirit that we welcome the input of our colleagues to further help us shape the Artist Services program, “ said Putnam. ”Our hope is that it contributes to the long-term sustainability of independent film careers and a greater diversity of films reaching audiences each year.”

With the addition of new partners Tugg, Reelhouse, VHX, and Vimeo, Sundance Institute is expanding its suite of digital platforms and tools offered by Artist Services. Current partners include ten digital retailers as well as Kickstarter , GoWatchIt, and Topspin Media. Tugg is a web-platform that allows filmmakers and fans to create screening events at their local theater. Direct-to-fan platforms Reelhouse, VHX and Vimeo, like longtime Artist Services collaborator Topspin Media, will work with Sundance Institute and its interested supported filmmakers to develop opportunities to sell their films and merchandise directly to end users. All four new partners will participate in the annual Artist Services Workshop on Monday, January 21, at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah.

Since the Artist Services program launched in January 2011, more than $3.2 million has been raised for nearly 100 Institute artists’ projects via Kickstarter and more than 40 films are now accessible by the public on a variety of platforms and storefronts.

The exclusive aggregation partner for distribution participating in the Artist Services program is Cinedigm – New Video. The Artist Services initiative is made possible by The Bertha Foundation. These deals were brokered via pro bono legal services generously provided by law firm O’Melveny & Myers LLP, which has built the legal framework for the Artist Services program and participating filmmakers since its inception.

   The Last Stand stars Arnold Schwarzenegger (Terminator) as the sheriff of a small town called Sommerton.  Sommerton is a place where nothing happens but that’s how the sheriff likes it.  He’s old and not in the best of shape so he enjoys the quiet life.  However, a complication involving the FBI is about to bring a lot of noise to Sommerton.  While the FBI is attempting to transport the leader of a drug cartel in Vegas to a stronger holding facility, he manages to escape.  His plan is to race to the Mexican border in one of the fastest cars in the world and he happens to have a lot of men with a lot of firepower working for him.  The only thing standing in the way of this drug lord and the Mexican border is the tiny town of Sommerton.  When the sheriff hears that this drug lord is going to be passing through his town, he gathers up his band of misfit deputies, including Luis Guzman (Boogie Nights) and Johnny Knoxville (Jackass), and a lot of guns to take one last stand to stop the escaped convict.

As mentioned before, the acting is horrendous in The Last Stand.  Arnold is Arnold, Luis Guzman plays the same character in every movie he’s ever been in, and Johnny Knoxville is crazy.  But that doesn’t matter.  All of them are hilarious and are perfect for their roles.  If The Last Stand had good actors but still contained the violence and unlikely plot structure then it would have been terrible.  The actors would have tried to give a meaningful performance in a film that has no meaning.  Instead of having something that is awesome and fun like Expendables 2, you end up with something like Gangster Squad.  Fortunately, The Last Stand is more like Expendables 2.  Physics is tossed out the door and the studio spends more money on buckets of blood than production value.  The violence and action are well choreographed but it is so over the top in such a good way.  Director Kim treats The Last Stand like it’s a comedy and it works so well.  I won’t spoil anything but there’s one scene involving Johnny Knoxville and a flare gun and it’s just spectacular.  That scene defines the type of movie The Last Stand is.  There’s also a scene involving a car chase through a corn field that’s pretty intense.  I only have one real problem with the movie and it involves the entire first half.  The film takes a little bit of time to set everything up and get everything going.  Also, some drama is thrown into the mix which was a little irritating.  The first half of the film is definitely too serious but the second half of the film makes up for the slow start and completely redeems itself.  The second half of The Last Stand is what you pay to see.

   The Last Stand is what I like to call a good bad movie.  This means that it was so bad that it’s actually enjoyable.  It’s not the type of movie that will go down into your collection of outstanding films and it’s not the type of film that the Academy will recognize.  It’s the type of movie that attracts you to the theater to eat popcorn and have a good time.  Overall, The Last Stand is just plain fun.  Plus, it’s a very welcoming return for Mr. Schwarzenegger.  B