Why did TIFF go younger this year?

Anyone who takes even a basic look at the schedule for TIFF this year will notice a bit of a difference in the type of films which were scheduled to play. In the past you would have seen a focus on independent films and Hollywood films which would focus on a more experienced, filmmaker focused audience. You had films like “The Ides of March”, “The Informant” and “Shame”. This year however you can see more of a skew towards a younger audience with films like “Spring Breakers”, “Dredd 3D”, “On The Road” and even “Much Ado About Nothing”. What’s the significance of such a move? Is there a reason for it? What can be done about it?

The answer to most of those questions is yes, all with the exception the last one. Mainly because I’m not sure they need to do anything about it. Long time patrons of the festival might look at the people involved in this year’s films and say why do we need to appeal to a younger audience? Why do we need films starring Kristen Stewart, Selena Gomez and Vanessa Hudgens? Aren’t they all just attention grabbing Disney stars with no real talent? First and foremost I would say that anyone who insists upon saying such things probably hasn’t taken the time to actually watch any of the work of any such stars and I am a big believer in the idea that you can’t judge a person’s talent if you haven’t taken the time to give it a shot.

I’ve actually seen some of their work, including some of the films I mentioned earlier, and I would say that they have real talent. It’s a little on the rough side in some areas but they aren’t supposed to be seasoned veterans of the craft because they aren’t yet old enough to have put in the kind of time a seasoned veteran would need to appear as such. Plus in looking at some of these films, they may have actually done so. They’ve been given the opportunity in many of these films to stretch their acting muscles and turned in pretty good performances.

Some might say that TIFF has to be careful not to alienate its core audience of filmmakers. But who’s to say they did? “On The Road”, while starring Kristen Stewart, is based on a Jack Kerouac novel. Hardly the tween fluff she is often accused of doing. As I said in my review, Spring Breakers was a film by Harmony Korine maker of such films as “Kids”, not exactly someone known for creating films that teenagers are encouraged to see. In fact Selena Gomez actually encouraged her younger fans not to see it given its more adult content, even as hundreds of younger girls sat in the audience after the screening while she said it. These are not exactly films which betray many of the ideas that TIFF built its reputation on.

Even if it were, why is that so wrong? I’ve said it before and I will say it again, film is not a uniform media. It’s not required to conform to a particular idea of what a good film is or who should be in such films. Some filmmakers and their films may present themselves that way, but that’s only one of many narratives available to creators in the visual arts. The most prominent narrative is that film is a reflection of society, and if TIFF wishes to stay true to that above anything else, then it has to be willing to broaden its appeal to more than just its core audience.

TIFF has to stay relevant to the audiences of today and not all of them are 30+ filmmakers who remember Sylvester Stallone as Rocky instead of The Expendables. At a certain point you have to recognize the bigger audience and figure out if you can appeal to them as much as those you admire.

Why did TIFF go younger this year? I think that much is obvious.

Spring Breakers Review: Anyone up for partying with “Spring Breakers”?

What goes through your head when you read the names Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens, Rachel Korine and Ashley Benson? For people who follow pop culture the first word that comes to mind is the word Disney. Often for filmmakers the words “pre-packaged Disney kids stuff” or some variation there upon is what they say. In either case it is something that can put people off when those names pop up on the metaphorical marquee of a film’s cast list. They can take a step back and say ‘you know what, that’s not for me’ without even giving the film a chance.

Suppose I were to add another name to that list. What if the next name on that list was Harmony Korine? I imagine there would be a few filmmakers reading this who would suddenly find themselves more interested. Those who might be somewhat less initiated should know that Harmony Korine’s film credits include such ground breaking and somewhat controversial films as “Kids”, “Mister Lonely” and “Trash Humpers”. Names which carry a bit more weight in the indie scene then some of the films associated with the previous four names I mentioned above. Of course this broader scope will lead people to another negative comment which sounds like “Oh look, a bunch of Disney sweethearts trying to break out of their squeaky clean image by being edgy and shocking people”. And this always leads me to... why the heck is that?

Why do we as a society, and in particular filmmakers, automatically jump to such conclusions about the people involved in a project if their history is one that is associated with Disney? Why do we place people like Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens and Ashley Benson inside these boxes when history tells us that they are going to try and break out of them eventually? Perhaps those boxes we put them in never really existed in the first place. Maybe these actors were always serious about their work and we just couldn’t see it because we’d rather shove them in a corner. The film industry is a brutal business. No matter where you get your start, whether it’s Disney or through some other aspect of the industry, you don’t get into it unless you’re serious about succeeding. Does it really matter where that success comes from?

I try not to carry any such baggage into a film when I go to see one, which doesn’t mean that I don’t have any such baggage when going into a film. It is often the actors or filmmakers involved in the film that will lead me to wanting to see it in the first place. There’s no denying it plays a role in the decision making process of putting my rather limited funds into buying a ticket. But when I sit in the seat and settle in to watch, I try to let that experience stand on its own. A lot of people out there will have to try and do that in order to get them in that seat, but if they can then they will be pleasantly surprised. If they can’t, then by the end of the film they will be forced to reevaluate what I think is a fundamentally flawed perspective on the actors involved.

Because I honestly believe there’s no other way to come out of this film. The story is such a fascinating and well told one. The actors so very clearly embody the roles they play. Of particular note is James Franco in the role of the gangster named Alien, but I don’t think that his performance works without the great work of the other four young actors who accompany him. Spring Breakers is smart, funny, disturbing and emotional, sometimes all at once in a really beautiful way.

That doesn’t happen without the solid and emotionally honest performances of his co-stars. Harmony Korine is known for edgy and controversial films, and Spring Breakers is no exception. There are a number of scenes which are difficult to watch and the fact of the actors involved makes it fairly controversial. What sets this film apart is the way in which the event of spring break and the story become so well integrated.

He spoke during the Q&A about the idea of micro scenes and repetitiveness to tell the story he is trying to tell, but I would liken it to a deliberate attempt to give the audience an experience much like spring break itself. The non linear micro scenes and repetitiveness give you the feeling of a drunken, drug filled orgy of sex and violence masterfully controlled from the filming, editing and post-production. And so...

Anyone up for partying with Spring Breakers? I don’t know about you, but I had a rocking good time.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World: Who wins?

Comic book movies are by no means unique in this day and age. There are so many of them that you’d almost think that comic books and Hollywood studios are the same thing. Of course, in some ways they are given that the biggest comic book producers, Marvel and DC Comics, are both owned by major Hollywood studios (DC by Warner Brothers and Marvel more recently by Disney). However when it comes to comics, they are by no means the only game in town. You’ve got The Walking Dead being published by Image, Hellboy and R.I.P.D. and many others by Dark Horse, and of course Scott Pilgrim vs. The World by Oni Press.

What all these comics have in common, obviously, is that they have been or are being adapted into feature films or in the case of The Walking Dead, a TV show. But I think one of the things that might make Scott Pilgrim different is that in a way it’s not just a comic book adaptation. In a way it’s also a video game adaptation. This is where things start to get interesting because as much as comic book adaptations have a bad reputation in the filmmaking community video games have an even worse reputation. A reputation that is not entirely undeserved. Many video game adaptations have gone horribly wrong in their transitions from game console to (most often) large scale live action film.

Going into this film then, I can certainly understand why people might not rush out to see it since just those two things already creates two strikes against it. Unfortunately for those that didn’t (in which I count myself), those two strikes are part of the reason you should have seen it, particularly if you grew up in that bit of a sweet spot era when comic books and video games were a central figure of your childhood. The film manages to blend those two worlds together almost seamlessly while not taking away from the reality of the film elements of today. Having never read the comic book on which it’s based myself, I can’t really comment on just how faithful it stays to the comic book or the video games for which it makes numerous references throughout, but from what I can gather the creator of the comics was heavily involved in the production of the film and he seems quite happy with it based on what I hear.

It strikes the right balance between the simple, quiet, character driven moments that are necessary for us to care about the characters we’re being introduced to, some of us for the first time, and the epic battle sequences that are littered throughout to ramp up the emotional adrenaline, all of which builds to the dramatic climax that both video game and comic book based films are often known for. The film is a visual masterpiece just in the way that all the graphics and special effects are more often than not a part of the story and enhance it in many ways. At its core though, the film is about an awkward teenager who falls in love with a woman that has a lot more baggage then he was probably expecting to deal with when he asked her out.

If you’ve ever been in love with someone you weren’t sure how to, you will understand this film. Or wished your life and relationships were a lot more fun than it is, you will understand this film. And if you’ve ever experienced both, then this movie is definitely for you.

So, in the epic battle of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, who wins? The audience wins.