I have been coming on and off to the Edinburgh International Film Festival for about 5 years and now in their 60th year, I took a job working at the festival organizing their Industry Events. Since I arrived in Edinburgh there has been - quite rightly- a bit of a fuss about the 60th birthday of the festival. There was a lovely fancy birthday party last week hosted by the festival's patron, Sir Sean Connery and attended by the likes of Kevin Smith, Charlize Theron, Robbie Coltrane, Gabriel Byrne and Brian DePalma and the Filmhouse which is the premiere venue for the festival and a long running arthouse cinema hosted EIFF screening series highlighting films and filmmakers from the past 59 years.

With all of the hullabaloo, lots and lots of people (including yours truly) have been quite reflective about the films that they saw here for the very first time. In its 60-year history, the EIFF has shown a tremendous amount of really exceptional work by filmmakers well known then and now. Everyone from Scorsese to Tarkovsky to Denis to Soderbergh have screened here. They were one of the first festivals to do retrospectives which covered the wor of everyone from John Huston to Kirk Douglass to this year's Mitchell Leisen. Though not every film has been great or well received at the festival, it has been my experience at both in the past and this year that I have walked out of the cinema glad I went in. By no means have I loved everything I have seen but there always a lovely sense of emotional adventure here - i am moved, angry, disapppointed, turned on or disgusted and these are feelings that often barely register when I go to other festivals.

I saw Amores Perros here – a film that startled me and made me ravenous for Mexican Cinema; I saw Claire Denis’ Trouble Every Day – a film that took me away from and brought me back to my love of vampire flicks all at the same time and it was at EIFF that I first saw Wong Kar Wai’s In the Mood for Love – a film that moves me everytime I think of it. It was for me irrefutably one of the best film festival moments of my life. For that experience alone, the Edinburgh International Film Festival will always hold a special place in my heart.

Beginning in 1947 as a documentary festival, the EIFF has premiered and screened a great number of the classics from Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev to Bertolucci's The Conformist to Hopper's Easy Rider. It is a festival known for its sometimes obscure eclecticism something I find very refreshing in these days of recycling of the same films by the same directors. This year marks the departure of Shane Danielsen, my friend and often controversial Artistic Director. During his five years at the festival, he has brought his uniqueness of vision and taste without ever worrying that people might not like it or might not come - again, a rarity in the festival world. Shane has always had faith in the audience. He knew that they would alwyas find their way to the work. I wish him godspeed in his new endeavors.

Keeping it indie,
Julie

Recently, I decided to go and check out the new film, Quinceanara, directed by Wash Westmoreland and Richard Glatzer. I was looking forward to seeing it because after knowing it played so favorably on the festival circuit. First winning both a jury prize and audience award at the 2006 Sundance Film Festivals and has been receiving kudos in every city that it played. But when I asked a friend if she wanted to join me, she stated, “Oh, I heard it wasn’t very good,” and mentioned an unfavorable review in Entertainment Weekly. I still went to see the film (alone) and I thought it was great. The audience was filled on opening weekend of a Friday night in Chicago, and everyone was laughing and clapping throughtout the movie. When I got home, I was curious to see this negative review so I looked it up online. While Lisa Schwarzbaum’s review clearly wasn’t recommending the film, but it she talked more about the filmmakers than she did the actual film.

I decided to look at a few other reviews on the site so I checked to see how they reviewed Little Miss Sunshine, which was currently featured on the cover of the magazine. Much to my surprise, they gave it a “C” and stated it was “unfunny.” Neither review made no mention of these films success at festivals. So basically, if I had never heard of this film, and Entertainment Weekly was my only source of information, for discovering films, I would not bother checking out either film.

Earlier in the summer, the point was raised asking about the relevance of reviewers after they slammed blockbuster hits including The Da Vinci Code, and Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl. The audiences made it clear that despite reviews, they wanted some entertainment. But the difference is, both Da Vinci Code and Pirates had millions of marketing dollars behind them, so the audience at least were able to make the choice.

I think reviewers are entitled to their opinion, but I wonder if perhaps after going from screening to screening, some reviewers have forgotten that many people go to the movies simply to be entertained. If you don’t like a film, give a little perspective as to why. And for everyone else, I encourage to spread the word on the films you. Publicity in all forms, that's what I say.

Long live indie film,

Michelle

As I write this the powers that be are trying to make themselves and us feel better as we have once again been "attacked"' and our civil liberties have been jeopardized. I say this not in complete disagreement with those said powers as everyone should have the right to move about freely, carry about their business without fear of being killed. Sadly, however, we live in a world, a rather large world, where this is not the case. But, is the response to our basic freedoms being threatened to restrict those freedoms, to make us feel more like caged animals than protected. As I listen to and read the news from the US and the UK, I hear things like "more restrictions," "a ban on," and "tighter security measures," and though I understand the need and responsibility to try and protect as many people as possible, I can't help feeling more like a victim than someone who feels safe. Of course, I want people (including myself) to be as safe as possible but will not having carry on luggage do that or worse yet, having my personal items in a clear plastic bag so they are no longer personal but public. There is something very strange and invasive about this to me that falls in line with the current conservative wave of not just the US but the UK as well - and I am no conspiracy theorist.

Recently I was in a discussion with someone about 5 Days a film that is a chronicle of 5 days during the forced deportation of the Jews from the settlements in the Gaza Strip last August. The film shows the Israeli Defense Force physically removing their fellow Jews from their homes. It is a sight that is both heartbreaking for the soldiers who feel they are doing their duty as soldiers and betraying their faith and people simultaneously. It is not in any way a pro-Israeli film or a pro Palestinian film in my view and it manages to try and capture both sides from the point of view of the action. However, the person who I was having the discussion with felt that because of what was happening currently in Lebanon that I had no right to discuss or even comment favorably on a film about and/or made by someone Israeli. I was dumbfounded. Not only did the film have nothing to do with the current situation in Lebanon. The film was a living breathing document of a moment in history - a tragic moment but a moment nonetheless. Looking at something like this and the pre-release uproar over Oliver Stone's World trade Center I am finding more and more that people are consistently willing to dismiss or cry controversy over films they have not actually seen and/or present a view that is not their own or one widely held. I find myself again feeling trapped in a place where filmmakers, writers, artists, songwriters will not be able to make great work that rocks all of our sensibilities. Without the look outside the popular view, we would not have A Clockwork Orange, the Sex Pistols. Lolita, The Last Tango in Paris, Salo or Get Up Stand Up. It is so called controversy that makes us -in my view- as a society so wonderfully unique and creative. it brings out the best in us and the worst which is okay as long as it all continues.

Keeping it indie,
Julie

With all of the media attention going toward Mel Gibson in the past few weeks for his "mistake", I wanted to take this time to pay tribute to some of the most talented and creative people in Hollywood—personal publicists. I think these individuals are some of the most creative people in the industry but their works of fiction often go unrecognized. When celebrities behave badly, great publicists can turn any tragedy into triumph, a sinner to a saint—all with the power of a press release.

Here's my two personal favorites: When Winona Ryder was first arrested for shoplifting, a statement was released that she was "researching" a role. Or better yet, when Eddie Murphy was caught with a tranvesite, he was "simply giving the young lady a ride home." Genius.

But while studio films have stars dish the dirt to keep them in the new, most indie films don't have the luxury or the budget. So publicists have to pitch the only story they have... the actual film! So whenever you see a story about any indie film, you can guarantee that their was a team working away to spread word about the film.

So, as my inbox fills with press releases, I just wanted to recognize these hard-working folks... filmmakers, don't leave home without one!

Long live indie film,

Michelle