The chin was in. Quentin Tarantino was in the house.
Once properly introduced by MIFF Director Richard Moore, the black-suited Mr Tarantino strode out to the stage, as I -- clad in my DEATH PROOF t-shirt -- clapped and hollered like I was at the MCG (wasn't alone there, I might add). Only afterward, upon reflection of my enthusiasm and proximity to QT, did I discover that my behaviour could possibly have been interpreted as, well... gay. And not in the ironic, 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN style "Know how I know you're gay..." way. No, actually gay.
And I, a comfortably heterosexual man, make absolutely no apologies for this.
Tarantino answered the questions of Australian comedian/filmmaker John Safran (chosen, presumably, either because of his Jewish heritage, or reputation as a provocateur) with his customary enthusiasm, bravado and staggering filmic knowledge. I gotta tell ya: I don't think I could even recall half the conversation (thankfully I can recall the other half, clear as a bell). Just being in the room was sensory overload.
Safran's questions seemed to continually threaten to betray spoilers, but QT was doing his best to keep his film's secrets, talking instead of Goebbels' Louis B. Mayer-style involvement in the wartime German film industry, Eli Roth's "jewish revenge porn" fantasies and the influence of Leni Riefenstahl. Then, as an added surprise -- as if out of a hat -- he produced stars Diane Kruger and Christolph Waltz, who took the mike for a couple of brief introductions. Waltz's demeanour, in particular, gave no indication of the performance we were soon about to see; though he certainly seemed cultured and polite (even if his speech was slightly baffling). As the lights went down, the stars ducked out a side door, but Quentin strolled up the aisle to take his seat in the middle of the theatre, to watch his own film amongst the punters. Which fit perfectly; as much as any director before or since, he's a movie geek just like the rest of us.
(No, I'm not gonna tell you here what I thought of the film! All will be revealed in future chapters...)
So, yeah, you could say this experience shaped my MIFF in 2009. There were other delights (and, like any large event, hiccups) to be found, as well:
- The Coopers Forum Festival Lounge was as gorgeous and awesome as ever... however, they really need to stay open later. It's the perfect stylish, dimly-lit, post-film chillout/discussion venue... and it closes by 11:15. It's the Achilles Heel of what is, otherwise, perfection.
- Once again, the ungracefully aging Greater Union cinema took on the lion's share of sessions (even more than last year, which didn't seem possible), but I didn't experience as many dodgy seat issues as usual. (Besides, of course, the fact the seats there are sort of fundamentally dodgy.) I experienced a grand total of one shaky seat and four wobbly armrests. For better or worse, that's below average. I choose to call that a win.
- The Forum continued its fabulous tradition of being the festival's centrepiece venue; a super cool, old school theatre. Even with the age-old seats (the seating is stadium style, representing brilliant foresight on the part of those who built it), it rarely seems to get uncomfortable. I just adore seeing movies there. (Now, if only they could take back the Regent, and get the Capitol up and running again -- thus alleviating Greater Union of its burden -- and the experience of seeing movies at MIFF would fully return to former glory!)
- Last year, my incredibly awesome girlfriend kicked off a birthday tradition of buying me a MIFF Passport; as my birthday is a month before MIFF, it's pretty much perfect. However, Passports aren't cheap... so naturally I was incensed to hear that, from this year, one couldn't buy a Passport unless they also bought a MIFF Membership. A Membership alone, at AU$83, is quite reasonable, but when you stack it on top of the Passport price, it seemed a little rich. So a MIFF Passport was now going to cost my partner AU$413 and, on her behalf, I was livid. From this perspective, the Membership privileges didn't seem to be worth the cash: a paltry 10% off Festival merchandise, concession tickets to cinemas I don't go to (and, admittedly, the cinema I go to the most -- details schmetails, I'm building a case here!), priority queuing, etc. But, as MIFF is my midyear Christmas, I craved that Passport, so I swallowed my vitriol, complained to the MIFF Twitter page, and allowed my partner to pay the money...
Two days in, I discovered what an idiot I'd been. Two words, folks: PRIORITY QUEUING. My god. It's a whole new world. The difference between getting to the venue and going straight in to snag a decent seat (and to save some for your friends!), and standing out in the bitter Melbourne cold for 20 minutes waiting to be ushered in to a seat plastered against the screen. And, let's face it, I saw 52 flicks for AU$7.94 each, which is an ace deal. Mr. Richard Moore and co., I humbly submit my apology, and substitute it with thanks.
- Although it didn't really touch me personally, I can't rightly talk about MIFF 2009 without addressing the hailstorm of controversy that rocked it, courtesy of China versus a little documentary called THE 10 CONDITIONS OF LOVE, and, to a smaller extent, Ken Loach withdrawing his LOOKING FOR ERIC because MIFF bought an Israeli filmmaker (who'd made an Australian film!) a plane ticket. I'm sure you've read about all the website hackings, the hasty withdrawal of every Chinese & Hong Kong film from the program, the Chinese diplomatic corps pressuring Richard Moore to drop 10 CONDITIONS from the program... all dramatic stuff, and Mr. Moore deserves huge kudos for not backing down a millimetre. Instead of sacking the film, he added an extra session and moved it to a bigger venue, which resulted in serpentine queues the likes of which even MIFF had never seen. Well played, sir.
I really feel this is the year Richard Moore began to make MIFF truly his own, stepping out from the towering shadow created by the game-changing reign of James Hewison. For the most part, he's kept Hewison's better additions and has added his own to push Australia's finest film festival boldly into the next decade, and to Cloud Nine for all Melbourne-bound filmgoers.
Now, to the movies: My 10 Worst Films of MIFF 2009... so no flipping!
4 comments:
Sounds like fun, I really should attend MIFF more and I can't believe I missed the opportunity to see QT, John Safran, Diane Kruger and Christolph Waltz.
One correction though, The Chin is Bruce Campbell!!!
BC & QT should throw down and have a chin-off.
Okay, finally saw IB this week.
Hope I wasn't the one to push it over the $100m mark.
Couldn't live with that.
So, right, hmmmm.
Well, it started off on the wrong foot.
I have an extreme pet peeve about poor font usage (quite absurdly specific of me, but whatever).
And there, right at the start, four (from memory) different fonts used in the opening credits.
Why?
Now, this is not really new to QT.
I think PF used three (from memory).
But why choose to do that?
It's just so sloppy.
It's makes the whole thing seem so unprofessional, and not in a good way.
I can't begin to start hanging shit on the use of the actual, handwritten, scanned-from-the-screenplay title itself either.
But I will - how much of a fucking idiot are you?
Wait, don't tell me - a lot, right?
Again, so sloppy. It just doesn't fit AT all.
And, btw, accounts for the actual reason behind IB's mispelled title.
There's no special, secret reason; it's because he can't fucking spell.
And that's not a secret either.
Anyway, moving on.
Something good perhaps, just to appease TSIK and to prove I'm not a complete Grinch.
Christoph Waltz - fantastic.
Great character, great actor.
Very good, the best thing about the whole picture.
That's about it on the good front, I'm afraid.
The whole exercise seemed, again, so sloppy.
Perhaps sloppy's not the right word.
Undisciplined.
But you could argue that for all his films perhaps.
He's been indulgent throughout his career.
He was lucky (?) to get away with it early, so now he just does what he wants and thinks it's all gold.
This film though - there's so much time devoted to stuff we don't need to see.
Taking Brad and BJ down the street to the cafe to arrange the deal, for example.
Why do we need to follow them all the way there?
Completely unnecessary.
There's so much in the film that you could lose, but even if you did, the film wouldn't be any better.
My pre-viewing Eli Roth assessment remains 100% accurate.
If QT cared about the quality of his film, he would not cast Eli Roth in a not-unsubstantial role, when he could get almost anyone in Hollywood (or elsewhere) to do it.
A horrible, horrible decision that in no way can be justified (except through nepotism).
I don't know why people are making such a big deal about QT rewriting history either - don't all war movies, nay, movies based on SOME fact, do that to different degrees?
A silly thing to say (not that I've heard you say it TSIK).
How did Sally Menke - Editor get the first credit after QT too?
That was very odd.
Photography was very ordinary for someone as talented as Bob Richardson also.
Overall, really nothing special at all.
Certainly better than Death Proof, but that's not such a great compliment.
I would go so far as to say that he's lost his balls.
If he made Reservoir Dogs now, it'd go for 2.5hrs and be shit.
He needs someone (where's Bender gone?) to rein him in, someone who doesn't indulge all his flights of fancy.
Someone who'll say "No, get back on track. What are you trying to say in this scene? Is this telling the story in the best possible way?".
Instead of "Go Quentin Go! We're number one!".
That's all for now.
Totally missed this discussion...
I think IG contains QT's best work, but overall it's his sloppiest movie.
That's a great point about him being unable to make Reservoir Dogs now. I'd have to agree with that.
Regarding the chin-off, Andreas Katsulas would beat 'em both.
Post a Comment