We'd love to hear from you, and now is as good a time as any right???



Who directed or compiled it? Were the shorts done by several different directors, or was it just one? Sounds interesting.



Very. Most classical artists I know actually go the other way no? Think the connection and emotion is best done live, and some have refused to do studio recordings because of it. There's an interesting French Film called Diva about an opera star (Cynthia Hawkins I believe, but don't quote me on it, my memory suffers) who refuses to ever be recorded again because she thinks a performance is dependant on the arena and crowd, etc. It nice to see Gould pushed for access through radio, especially coming out of a classical tradition which is often less accessable.

Does it say, in the film, how illustrious a career he had after going through studios and radios? I've never heard of him either.



So was it doc? Or was it sort of a music biopic with acting? Did they insert his actual recordings into the film? Sounds really fascinating, and I have seen/heard about this movie before.



Perscription Pills?



I'll try to get it before the 16th if I can. Since most of my knowledge is also restricted to Egoyan/Invasions/Belleville.

It's directed by François Girard, who also did The Red Violen, another lauded film I hear.

Yeah, there is a couple scenes in which he speaks of his philosophy on the connection and such. There's a lot about his philosophies on stuff. I dont know anything about classical music, so I dunno if it was normal or out there, but it seems to be suggested as pretty unique stuff.
I found this quote: "Glenn Gould frequently hummed along while he played, and his recording engineers varied in how successfully they could exclude his voice from his recordings. Gould claimed this singing was unconscious, and increased proportionately with the inability of the piano in question to realise the music as he intended."

It is a biopic in that it uses actors and actresses to recreate stuff about him. Feore plays Gould in these parts. When he's sitting in a diner, he picks up on 4 or 5 different conversations and processes each perfectly, whereas the audiance starts to hear muffled confusion. (Though I read somewhere that he is actually recording this conversaions. Liked to record people or something.) And then some of the ''short stories'' (each one is seperated by a black screen with a title, btw) have actually real life interviewers and other musicians and such talking about him, like a documentary. And like I said, some of the ''shorts'' are just his music (I assume it is anyway) overtop beautiful, colorful closeups/animation.

I assume so. dont know much about pills. But some were described as "not to be used with such and such" and the next pill was described as "such and such". After this section there is an interview with a lady who says she used his bathroom once and saw all these bottles and asked him "youre not using all of them, surely?" and he answered "well..not all at once."
You definitely should. My answers to your quotes aren't nearly as sufficient as they probably should be...but I think its an experience best viewed as a whole.

This is interesting, too:
"Triplets of Belleville (2003) includes a segment in which an animated Glenn Gould with greatly exaggerated mannerisms plays the Prelude No. 2 in C minor, from J. S. Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier Book One."

Must be pretty big up there.

check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Gould for much more information, if interested.

Now I have to see it. You've reall piqued my curiosity.

As to the Red Violin, I was thoroughly unimpressed. Except for the soundtrack, which I now own, and had Joshua Bell (is he still well known) doing violin. It didn't have any of the experimental aspects that Glenn Gould seemed to have had, and as an object history was mundane and uninspired. Especially since Girard placed the violin all over the world without handling the very interesting aspects of how it got into the hands of eacho of the five people he covers. Each vignette starts with it already in their ownership.

But the idea of the violin itself being so valueable, so perfect, was based i belive off of Stradivarius violins, which are outright national heirlooms at this point they're so reknown. That's fascinating, and quite decision for Girard to cover. The violins have been analyzed to death and somehow their sound could never be recreated. Girard does the same thing with his violin, and then shows the violin's life stor against a backdrop of music. But the tales themselves are really, uh, easy. He really does seem excited about music/musicians though.

Aww, you're sweet

Is there a schedual for the festival? Like, say, Oct 8th is invaded by the Barbarians and the 10th is for the Bellville folks?

Schedule is do it at your own leisure. We thought it would be hard to line people up for one certain movie due to their schedules and what access they had to the film at the time. But if you talk about it, I've seen them all, as have a few others, and the host would respond to your comments as they come.

Last year we did organize about five people who all watched Suspiria at the same time for the Italian horror thread, so if you're interested in trying to watch something simultaneously, go ahead and try, make some contacts, build a schedule. I'll do it if you like.

Ok, I'll try and see what films I can get a hold of. I don't think I've seen a foreign or Canadian film since Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

Oh, you fellow Canucks and honorary hosers. Glad to see some interest in this film festival. I kind of abandonned the thread accidentally, with a bit of a busier schedule lately, but I'm going to be home tomorrow, and I hope to possibly either rent a few movies, and do a little more research for the thread.

Watch Fubar. That movie is the best canadian comedy out in the land.

Actually Rusty, I remember when you hosted last year and recommended it. I tried to find it then unsuccessfully, but I'll try to find it again. Thanks for the rec, I really want to watch something side-splittingly funny. If it doesn't succeed, I'm taking you to task...

Here's my short list of the best of the Genie winners...

Today, I saw a few commercials on TV for Where the Truth Lies on the Canadian channel, The Comedy Network. Odd place for it, but I was surprised to see a commercial at all. Looks good!

I hear the Canadian release date is today for that (or maybe next week)...

You think you're gonna be able to check it out?

Yeah, I think it's released today, but I doubt I'll be able to see it. If I can, I'll be sure to let you guys and girlseses know.

Rewatched The Tripletts of Belleville!

You know, I was incredibly taken by this movie upon seeing it in theatres to the point where I placed it in my top 101. Upon revisiting it, I STILL LOVE IT! Don't know why. It's ben brought to my attention numerous times that it has zero content, and I know I typically go for content driven film, but there's something both about the style, the odd vision, and the warmth or characters that really wins me over.

I love the grandma. I love how while training her grandson she actually does just as much exercise, and when she goes looking for him she plows through physical and cerebral task after task like the twelve obstacles of Hercules. She's so determined, and meeting all these eccentric people and being in these odd spaces doesn't phase her. She's on a mision. Her and the dog...the only other object the young boy had an affinity for.

I like that it was wordless. Might harken back to my love for The Red Balloon (a movie where only two words were muttered once). I'm sick of all animation being assigned human language, facial expressions, characterisitics. I don't like how everything is spoken. So once inawhile seeing a movie with zero words that relies on sound, motion, imagery, symbolism, just really excites me. The fact that unlike, say, Koyaanisquatsi, Triplettes is completely insane and hilarious, just really eases me up a bit too.


edit** I somehow knew Bradley would have picked this as one of his favorite Genie award winners.
If this style is immitated too often, it will become as generic as Disney, but for now, the sketchyness and flatness of color, the charicatures, and the popping frogs all work great! Still such a great ride of a film.

Well if you want to see the movie that spawned canada's most famous tv show, check out the Trailer Park Boys movie. It is in black & white and the characters aren't as developped as they are in the show but I still love it. Greatest television show ever to be produced.

I feel bad for not doing what I was supposed to. But... seems like "Where the Truth Lies" didn't open too well.

$37,726 opening weekend with a $4,191 average on 9 screens (theatres? I get 'em confused). With a $25 million budget. Big budget.

*WOW* just *WOW*

There are going ot be spoilers here, so don't read further if you plan on seeing this movie, though in all honestly, I missed part of the plot points and this movie was stil incredibly fascinating to me, so knowing what happens probably won't affect you anyways.

I finally saw Speaking Parts by Atom Egoyan today. An incredibly early movie for him, 1989, it's mesmerizing. I was glued to the multiple screens from the first moment of the film. He traces people through their common relationship to mediation. Because of that, half the film is images on other tv's but the way egoyan weaves the two together, and understands the nuances of tone is amazing.

Lance is a struggling actor who works at a hotel during the day while desperately trying to get his first speaking role. Clearly half his habits are already "performed." I have questions (most of them actually) having to do with him. 1) Was he a callboy? Is that what his job at the hotel was? I got confused and assumed he wasn't except for his meetings with Clara. But as the story unforlds I wonder more and more what his position is. There are snide remarks, and so forth. And theres a scene were he wakes up in a bed, I'm assuming it was Clara's but then he runs down/up the hall and speaks with her. She left and came back? Or was he in another room> This makes a BIG difference to me, so if someone else has seen this film, please let me know what you thought.

It matters to me because I am not sure if Clara is the suicide at the end or not? Egoyan sends very mixed messages, including the "crying" scene which didn't seem to coincide chronologically with where Clara was (bugging the producer) at the time.

Now, this may seem like I'm nit-picking, considering what we know of Clara and Lance, etc but it makes me read the final iconogrophical scene with the gun differently. Is "envioning" her suicide, as he is aware someone has already killed themselves in the hotel? Or does he know it was her?

This is what lisa seems to believe. That she knows, or has been witness anyways, to the transactions in the room. But sh'e in her own obsessive compulsive world. A maid that is obsessed with Lance and only watches films (and parts of films) he is an extra in. When she "loses her objectivity" at a wedding that local videostore clerk (and resident filmer) invite her to help out with, its clear that this movie has one ultimate exploration. Our image of ourselves, in our own eyes. Where Clara sees the script going, she can't remove herself from the edits to her autobiographical text. Where Lisa observes Lance, envisions she is a part of his life even though she is seen basically saying two words to him (he avoids her0 the entire time. Where Lance sees himself, struggling to act, I felt half his reactions, including the masturbation scene were he doesn't come (but she does) were his own performance. Him trying to land the lead in her script. But it was never clear if he felt for her genuinely or if it was all false. It seems, at the end, that it is genuine, but if she's already killed herself, it could be more guilt and remorse for abusing her trust (seducing her) than mutual emotions?

How incredibly was this movie. It certainly had some flaws, but is very ambitious, and engaging visually and psychologicallys. I have to say, I really like Egoyan's earlier works the more i see of them. I'm referring to Calendar as well. These two movies seem to have been made on a fairly low budget (with his wife being one of the main actresses. She's quite unrefined, but perfect and very raw in her roles), and have made the most out of what they have. more than the most actually. They're rough, and choppy, but here, Egoyan even uses repeated characters due to all their positions within the film industry, so seeing them on home reocrding, in real life, and then on high budget feature length production is smooth yet dicomboluating at the same time.

Another excellent Egoyan film, he really explored interesting spaces in his own quirky way. Though my confusion as to Lance's role in the hotel, and what occured near the end of the film, may affect my opinion on a second viewing, both readings still seem pretty taught, and I'd recommend this film to anyone up for a challenge. How did it take me two weeks (from when i got it) to finally get around to seieng it? Please tell me someone else has/will check it out? I want to know their sentiments to the questions I put forth.

Is it politically correct to say that The Fast Runner (Atanarjuat) is really not that fucking good and after the novelty wears out there's little to sustain it for it's 3 hour length. I mean... the film is not a documentary, and despite the fact that the Inuit never acted before... it's still bad acting, and slowly paced...

URGHRGHGHGh

Yep. It received an extraordinarliy high amount of acclaim as a sort of anthropological study. Expose to outside audiances. It wasn't anthropological at all, or, well the bad kind anyways. The kind where someone visits a sight and removes anything from the conscious space that(s)he doesn't want to contend with. I tried to take it as a historical fiction type film, but its desire to create a sense of timelessness, and place it in the contemporary, ruined its own effect. Made National Geographic specials seem more complex, interesting, and as far as the story...When push comes to shove. Its just about a guy who sleeps with a couple women and then realizes he still loves the woman that has stood by him all these years. Not mind-blowing. I really don't understand why this became as popular as it did. Outside of the fact that it had the additional emotional attachment (for me anyways) of being a foundation film for a futute production, and that it at least tried to achieve a sense of timelessness.