jonchiz67 (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} jonchiz67) wrote,@ 2007-11-05 23:54:00 |
|
Four Fun Days of Fantastic Films about Families at the VFF
[This is the first of a four-part series]
Wow—what a weekend it was! As you know, I attended the 20th Annual Virginia Film Festival this weekend; I had an absolutely fantastic time. The theme of the festival this year, as I think I mentioned previously, is “Kin Flicks,” which means films about families. This is not to be confused with “family films” which is a synonym for children’s movies. Rather, what this means is that almost all the movies shown dealt with the complexities of family relationships and even definitions of family. For example: one documentary captured an argument between father and son, another questioned if a support group for ex-cons can be considered family. Two others dealt with White families whose ancestors owned slaves and now discovered they are related, by blood, to African-Americans. And still others dealt with what happens in a family when members suddenly discover one of family has a deep, dark secret. None of these are appropriate for children, yet seeing all these films, back to back, really makes you stop and think and question what is the nature of a family, and what is your relationship to the various members of your own family. And I was particularly glad that I was able to see many of these movies with my sister Judi, and was able to discuss with her important issues raised by the movies and by the discussions afterwards.
There is so much to write about, there is no way I could get it all into a single journal entry. So, to not overwhelm myself or you, I have decided to actually write four separate entries (which, if you don’t mind, will serve as drafts of what I will eventually turn into one or two or three formal articles for my website). Tonight I will write about four out of nine films that I saw this weekend. The second entry will deal with three films by a single director: Macky Alston. The third entry will deal with two amazing films by Alan Berliner and my experience meeting and talking to him. And finally, the fourth entry will discuss some various observations, incidents, and musings from my experience at the festival which don’t relate directly to the movies I saw.
First up: “Killer of Sheep.” This movie, from 1977, is considered a seminal film for African-American cinema. It’s about a family struggling unsuccessfully to overcome poverty while living in the Watts section of LA. Despite critical praise, I personally found it rather slow moving. It’s what you’d call a “slice-of-life” film with no real overall plot, just characters dealing with their frustrating daily routines, a bit like Sisyphus. Some scenes were more interesting than others; one of the better scenes was where Stan, the main character, was approached by people he knew who wanted him to be part of a crime. Another memorable scene was when two characters slowly and carefully carried a heavy car engine one had just bought down several flights of stairs and put it in the back of a pickup truck; but the rear flap was missing and when they drove off, the engine fell off the truck and was irreparably damaged.
There seemed to be some real metaphors in this movie, especially the sheep which were killed in a slaughterhouse where the main character worked. However, director Charles Burnet, who was present and talked about the movie afterwards, contradicted that as he told the story of how, while he was writing the script, he got the idea to make the protagonist an employee of a slaughterhouse.
I think the audience had mixed reactions to it. Some seemed to really appreciate the effect of the socio-economic conditions upon the characters; others seemed to be bored by the movie. I noticed a few people actually walked out. Also, some guy in the row in front of us fell asleep and started snoring. Really, it wasn’t that bad. Especially when we found out later that this was Burnet’s first student film. Therefore it must be judged by different standards and it’s more easy to forgive the scenes which don’t work so well or are too drawn out.
A much more powerful and emotional movie that Judi and I saw was “For the Bible Tells Me So.” It looked into three spots in the Bible that Christians often cite to justify their hatred and condemnation toward homosexuals (the “Holiness Code” in Leviticus, one of Paul’s letters to the Romans, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah) and examined them in their appropriate historical context casting serious doubt on contemporary, literal interpretations. I particularly enjoyed a clip in the film from the TV show “The West Wing” in which the President pointed out that the Bible commands so many ridiculous things which we, as a society, have long since ignored.
More interestingly, this movie followed five religious families and their various reactions to discovering that one of their children was gay. Some, such as the Dick Gephardt family, were immediately accepting; others took more time but eventually lead a crusade against their church and the anti-gay preachings of “Focus on the Family.” One family, unfortunately, never really accepted their child’s homosexuality at all. And one only did, tragically, after her daughter committed suicide. Interestingly, one of those gay children was Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Anglican bishop from New Hampshire.
I thought the movie was very professionally made, and it was quite moving to see people’s hearts and lives transformed by having a gay child. Although the filmmaker was not in attendance, afterwards there was a debate between a gay man and an anti-gay clergyperson about reconciling Christianity with homosexuality.
Of the nine films I saw, the one I liked the least was “The Last Jews of Libya.” It’s a documentary that tells the story of one Jewish family, one of the last to get out of Libya, in the mid 1960s. The director, Vivienne Roumanni-Denn, set out to only make a video record for her family, not a serious movie, but the project grew. She’s not a filmmaker by trade, and this is her first movie; therefore, the style is rather traditional and not very artistically rendered. It is an interesting story, but I didn’t find it terribly compelling, nor that interestingly told. Not that it was a boring or bad film; just that it pales when compared to all the other films we’d seen during the weekend.
The movie used the director’s mother’s memoirs to recount the story, and that narration was dramatically read by Isabella Rosselini. Through the story of this family, I learned a lot of interesting things about Jewish history I had never known. I learned that Jews lived in harmony with their Muslim neighbors for 2500 years in Arab countried. Libya was an Italian colony and most Jews actually liked Mussolini—that is until he allied himself with Hitler and then things went down hill really fast. They actually had to flee to neighboring Tunisia to escape the persecution. But when World War II ended, they returned. But then things got bad for Jews again in 1948, after the creation of the State of Israel which was a serious bone of contention between the Libyan Jews and their Arab neighbors. The Jewish community of Libya had a mass exodus in the early 50s, many ending up in Israel, but this particular family stayed behind with just a few dozen other families until they finally left in 1967 and went to the US.
The talkback was interesting. Particularly when the director admitted that she used a shot which she had promised her family she wouldn’t use. We also learned what kind of Judaism was practiced in Libya: what today we would call Orthodoxy.
Finally, I want to talk about “Moving Midway,” a film I consider one of the two best from the festival. (The other was “Wide Awake” which I will get to in part 3 of this 4-part series.) This was one of the movies I had previewed and written up, so the day before its screening, I recognized the director, Godfrey Cheshire, and went up to him and introduced myself. He told me that he was very pleased with the write-up the film had been given in the program, and that made me smile from ear-to-ear. Of course what I had written was edited down (to about half of what I wrote) through at least two editors; and I wanted to explain that to Godfrey, since I felt that my original piece was far better than what finally appeared in the program. But Godfrey knew exactly what I was talking about because he too is a film critic (he writes for Variety) whose writing is subject to editing by others. And by the way, I find it extremely interesting that he’s spent his life as a film critic but now has put on a new hat and has made a movie. Not only is it an amazing film considering it’s his first; but it’s an amazing film even without that qualification.
The movie is about the Southern, ante-bellum Midway Plantation, near Raleigh, NC, which has been in Godfrey’s family for generations. Charlie Silver, the owner and Godfrey’s cousin, tries to protect the homestead from encroaching suburban sprawl by literally uprooting the building from off its foundation and move it to a new location several miles away. This act the act prompts the family to explore the historical, social, and cultural implications of the pre-Civil War plantation, and, in the process, discover a whole new branch of the family they never knew existed: the African-American branch. The documentary chronicles not only the amazing technical feat of moving a large house several miles, but also tension within the family and the surprising joy of meeting new relatives. The film also examines the myth versus the reality of the slave-labor-driven ante-bellum plantation experience including a look at culture-shaping films like “Birth of a Nation,” “Gone with the Wind,” and “Roots.” And I felt that it expertly interweaved the narrative with cultural essays.
The talkback after the film was the best of any talkback at the festival. A lot of good topics were covered: the changing South, ghosts, race, labor, Southern identity, reconciliation, the historical past vs. the mythical past.
When I had a chance to ask Godfrey a question, I said, “Did your experience as a film critic help you make the movie in any way, and in the same vein, did your experience making the movie help you as a film critic?” In response to the first, he said that it definitely helped in the editing process. And as to the second, he said it gave him a new appreciation for things to look for in others movies—minute details he might not have otherwise noticed.
David Edelstein, film critic for New York Magazine, happened to be in the audience and he commented that in his opinion it was one of the best documentaries he had seen in years. Also, during the talkback, we learned that Charlie’s two younger brothers didn’t support the move and strongly objected to it and to Godfrey making the movie. That’s a shame.
Well, that’s all for tonight. I’m going to try to write up the next three parts of this as soon as possible. I hope, so far, you’ve been finding my experiences at the VFF interesting.
[This is the first of a four-part series]
Wow—what a weekend it was! As you know, I attended the 20th Annual Virginia Film Festival this weekend; I had an absolutely fantastic time. The theme of the festival this year, as I think I mentioned previously, is “Kin Flicks,” which means films about families. This is not to be confused with “family films” which is a synonym for children’s movies. Rather, what this means is that almost all the movies shown dealt with the complexities of family relationships and even definitions of family. For example: one documentary captured an argument between father and son, another questioned if a support group for ex-cons can be considered family. Two others dealt with White families whose ancestors owned slaves and now discovered they are related, by blood, to African-Americans. And still others dealt with what happens in a family when members suddenly discover one of family has a deep, dark secret. None of these are appropriate for children, yet seeing all these films, back to back, really makes you stop and think and question what is the nature of a family, and what is your relationship to the various members of your own family. And I was particularly glad that I was able to see many of these movies with my sister Judi, and was able to discuss with her important issues raised by the movies and by the discussions afterwards.
There is so much to write about, there is no way I could get it all into a single journal entry. So, to not overwhelm myself or you, I have decided to actually write four separate entries (which, if you don’t mind, will serve as drafts of what I will eventually turn into one or two or three formal articles for my website). Tonight I will write about four out of nine films that I saw this weekend. The second entry will deal with three films by a single director: Macky Alston. The third entry will deal with two amazing films by Alan Berliner and my experience meeting and talking to him. And finally, the fourth entry will discuss some various observations, incidents, and musings from my experience at the festival which don’t relate directly to the movies I saw.
First up: “Killer of Sheep.” This movie, from 1977, is considered a seminal film for African-American cinema. It’s about a family struggling unsuccessfully to overcome poverty while living in the Watts section of LA. Despite critical praise, I personally found it rather slow moving. It’s what you’d call a “slice-of-life” film with no real overall plot, just characters dealing with their frustrating daily routines, a bit like Sisyphus. Some scenes were more interesting than others; one of the better scenes was where Stan, the main character, was approached by people he knew who wanted him to be part of a crime. Another memorable scene was when two characters slowly and carefully carried a heavy car engine one had just bought down several flights of stairs and put it in the back of a pickup truck; but the rear flap was missing and when they drove off, the engine fell off the truck and was irreparably damaged.
There seemed to be some real metaphors in this movie, especially the sheep which were killed in a slaughterhouse where the main character worked. However, director Charles Burnet, who was present and talked about the movie afterwards, contradicted that as he told the story of how, while he was writing the script, he got the idea to make the protagonist an employee of a slaughterhouse.
I think the audience had mixed reactions to it. Some seemed to really appreciate the effect of the socio-economic conditions upon the characters; others seemed to be bored by the movie. I noticed a few people actually walked out. Also, some guy in the row in front of us fell asleep and started snoring. Really, it wasn’t that bad. Especially when we found out later that this was Burnet’s first student film. Therefore it must be judged by different standards and it’s more easy to forgive the scenes which don’t work so well or are too drawn out.
A much more powerful and emotional movie that Judi and I saw was “For the Bible Tells Me So.” It looked into three spots in the Bible that Christians often cite to justify their hatred and condemnation toward homosexuals (the “Holiness Code” in Leviticus, one of Paul’s letters to the Romans, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah) and examined them in their appropriate historical context casting serious doubt on contemporary, literal interpretations. I particularly enjoyed a clip in the film from the TV show “The West Wing” in which the President pointed out that the Bible commands so many ridiculous things which we, as a society, have long since ignored.
More interestingly, this movie followed five religious families and their various reactions to discovering that one of their children was gay. Some, such as the Dick Gephardt family, were immediately accepting; others took more time but eventually lead a crusade against their church and the anti-gay preachings of “Focus on the Family.” One family, unfortunately, never really accepted their child’s homosexuality at all. And one only did, tragically, after her daughter committed suicide. Interestingly, one of those gay children was Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Anglican bishop from New Hampshire.
I thought the movie was very professionally made, and it was quite moving to see people’s hearts and lives transformed by having a gay child. Although the filmmaker was not in attendance, afterwards there was a debate between a gay man and an anti-gay clergyperson about reconciling Christianity with homosexuality.
Of the nine films I saw, the one I liked the least was “The Last Jews of Libya.” It’s a documentary that tells the story of one Jewish family, one of the last to get out of Libya, in the mid 1960s. The director, Vivienne Roumanni-Denn, set out to only make a video record for her family, not a serious movie, but the project grew. She’s not a filmmaker by trade, and this is her first movie; therefore, the style is rather traditional and not very artistically rendered. It is an interesting story, but I didn’t find it terribly compelling, nor that interestingly told. Not that it was a boring or bad film; just that it pales when compared to all the other films we’d seen during the weekend.
The movie used the director’s mother’s memoirs to recount the story, and that narration was dramatically read by Isabella Rosselini. Through the story of this family, I learned a lot of interesting things about Jewish history I had never known. I learned that Jews lived in harmony with their Muslim neighbors for 2500 years in Arab countried. Libya was an Italian colony and most Jews actually liked Mussolini—that is until he allied himself with Hitler and then things went down hill really fast. They actually had to flee to neighboring Tunisia to escape the persecution. But when World War II ended, they returned. But then things got bad for Jews again in 1948, after the creation of the State of Israel which was a serious bone of contention between the Libyan Jews and their Arab neighbors. The Jewish community of Libya had a mass exodus in the early 50s, many ending up in Israel, but this particular family stayed behind with just a few dozen other families until they finally left in 1967 and went to the US.
The talkback was interesting. Particularly when the director admitted that she used a shot which she had promised her family she wouldn’t use. We also learned what kind of Judaism was practiced in Libya: what today we would call Orthodoxy.
Finally, I want to talk about “Moving Midway,” a film I consider one of the two best from the festival. (The other was “Wide Awake” which I will get to in part 3 of this 4-part series.) This was one of the movies I had previewed and written up, so the day before its screening, I recognized the director, Godfrey Cheshire, and went up to him and introduced myself. He told me that he was very pleased with the write-up the film had been given in the program, and that made me smile from ear-to-ear. Of course what I had written was edited down (to about half of what I wrote) through at least two editors; and I wanted to explain that to Godfrey, since I felt that my original piece was far better than what finally appeared in the program. But Godfrey knew exactly what I was talking about because he too is a film critic (he writes for Variety) whose writing is subject to editing by others. And by the way, I find it extremely interesting that he’s spent his life as a film critic but now has put on a new hat and has made a movie. Not only is it an amazing film considering it’s his first; but it’s an amazing film even without that qualification.
The movie is about the Southern, ante-bellum Midway Plantation, near Raleigh, NC, which has been in Godfrey’s family for generations. Charlie Silver, the owner and Godfrey’s cousin, tries to protect the homestead from encroaching suburban sprawl by literally uprooting the building from off its foundation and move it to a new location several miles away. This act the act prompts the family to explore the historical, social, and cultural implications of the pre-Civil War plantation, and, in the process, discover a whole new branch of the family they never knew existed: the African-American branch. The documentary chronicles not only the amazing technical feat of moving a large house several miles, but also tension within the family and the surprising joy of meeting new relatives. The film also examines the myth versus the reality of the slave-labor-driven ante-bellum plantation experience including a look at culture-shaping films like “Birth of a Nation,” “Gone with the Wind,” and “Roots.” And I felt that it expertly interweaved the narrative with cultural essays.
The talkback after the film was the best of any talkback at the festival. A lot of good topics were covered: the changing South, ghosts, race, labor, Southern identity, reconciliation, the historical past vs. the mythical past.
When I had a chance to ask Godfrey a question, I said, “Did your experience as a film critic help you make the movie in any way, and in the same vein, did your experience making the movie help you as a film critic?” In response to the first, he said that it definitely helped in the editing process. And as to the second, he said it gave him a new appreciation for things to look for in others movies—minute details he might not have otherwise noticed.
David Edelstein, film critic for New York Magazine, happened to be in the audience and he commented that in his opinion it was one of the best documentaries he had seen in years. Also, during the talkback, we learned that Charlie’s two younger brothers didn’t support the move and strongly objected to it and to Godfrey making the movie. That’s a shame.
Well, that’s all for tonight. I’m going to try to write up the next three parts of this as soon as possible. I hope, so far, you’ve been finding my experiences at the VFF interesting.
