My first time being to the Ebertfest ever was this year and it was to see the End of the Tour and Jason Segal! I chose this movie as my “first time” at Ebertfest because of the raving reviews it has got from critics of other film festivals. I was also eager to see Jason Segal’s amazing turn as the late author: David Foster Wallace.The performances and chemistry between both actors is one of the most insightful and awe-inspiring performances I have seen to date. The film acts as a sort of “tete-a-tete” or private conversation between two writers who were successful on different levels. The film had this naturalistic way of storytelling that is compliment of the actors and the director, James Ponsoldt, that has me eager to see where it went next. It did not disappoint.

I ended up not buying the tickets online so i had to wait about an hour and a half just to get in and I was able to get an empty seat up on the balcony. This experience was definitely not what i was expecting. The turnout was an amazing theatre filled with a graceful luxury that i have not seen in a long time and made me want to go back to a “real” theatre back in downtown Chicago. Despite me rolling this experience solo, I generally enjoyed my own company and the experience along with it.

The film was filled with puns towards the university and it’s residents and there was a genuine applause and laughter surrounding the jokes. This movie definitely had me on the edge of my seat with the dialogue and relayed a sort of dark and depressing undertone to it. However, the words and the topics that both characters spoke about had something so real and absolutely fluid in the way it was mentioned. It had some life lessons that had me unsuspecting on what the overall movie was about and from what I took from it, the movie was about the hardships of life and success, and the fact that you are always going to be wanting “more and more” until it consumes you. There is something truly inspirational about that theme and ways of always pushing past your limits and being your own person. After all, your best self is always going to be one step ahead and you are always striving to achieve that existential self.

This was my second time at Ebertfest and it did not disappoint.  Last year I was a volunteer and had a wonderful time.  Ebertfest this year lacked much of the celebrity appeal it was oozing with last year, I got to see Spike Lee, Brie Larson, Patton Oswalt, and Doug Benson all in the course of a weekend and that was just insane for me. So this year, at least for me, felt like it was more about the films than the guests attending, though there were still some highly notable attendees.

I had been excited to go to this year’s Ebertfest since the end of last year’s Ebertfest. I had eagerly awaited the list of films that were screening to arrive and have to admit I was slightly disappointed at having only heard of two of them, but I guess that is the point of Ebertfest given that it was originally called The Overlooked Film Festival.  I swallowed my sadness at the lack of famous people to brag about seeing live in person and began digging into the films that were screening and picked three to go to.

I ended up choosing End of the Tour based on the highly positive reviews I had heard from it’s screening at Sundance (and yes… the fact that Jason Segel was going to be there), Goodbye to Language because it was a newer, highly regarded Goodard film, and then Wild Tales, which I chose solely because it was described as comedic.Wild tales proved to be the most  pleasant surprise of the festival for more.  I had heard a bit about the film and watched a trailer for it before I was aware that it was screening at Ebertfest, but had trouble understanding what the film would be about.

It was difficult going to a earlier show, but the hours of sleep that I lost that day were more than worth it.  I was a bit skeptical if I would actually find the film funny or not, given that just a few days before Goodbye to Language was introduced as a comical film, but I spent most of it in utter confusion rather than amusement. Wild Tales begins in an airport, but once on the plane the hilarious, violent chaos that is Wild Tales truly began.

The film was an anthology of stories and though I enjoyed each immensely, my absolute favorite was called Until Death Do Us Part.  It was the last story of the film and perhaps the most hilarious of them all.  It’s set on a couple’s wedding day as the wife discovers her new husband has cheated on her with one of the guests and from that point she resolves not only to make that night a living hell, but the rest of his life as well. To see the way she devolves from a glamorous, happy bride to a vengeful, violent animal is amazing.

When the film ended I was crying from laughing so hard, it is the funniest movie I have seen in months and as the Q&A was about to begin I was a bit disappointed when I remembered only an actress and the casting director from the film were coming rather than the director. So you can imagine my absolute, unadulterated joy when Chaz announced that the director would be joining the discussion via Skype.  Though the internet connection was rocky at times, it was worth it to hear Damien Szifron discuss his genius film.

This was a great weekend at Ebertfest and I am eagerly awaiting the next.

I spent most of my time at Ebertfest as a volunteer, and it was usually a long and gruelling day on most days. But what I really enjoyed about Ebertfest is that everyone seems to genuinely enjoy being there, and everyone is really friendly. I was usually stationed at the theatre doors as an usher, and people would often ask questions and engage in conversations with me. I also really enjoy the experience of being in a cinema and seeing an audience share an experience like film.

I got to see three of the films during the festival, The End of the Tour, The Motel Life and 99 Homes, and I enjoyed each of them for different reasons. I wasn’t expecting The End of the Tour (based on the meeting between David Foster Wallace and David Lipsky) to be funny, and was pleasantly surprised by that. Although I did notice that some of the laughs that the film got were because it was set in Bloomington, which didn’t seem to be the director’s intention. The Motel Life was a more creatively made film. While I didn’t care much for the slow pace of the film, I enjoyed the use of hand-drawn images being incorporated into the film as the character would tell his story. 99 Homes was a generically atypical film, since it was about the housing crisis but was shot in the style of a thriller. The film’s fast editing and quick dialogue made the movie move really quickly, but it was still beautifully shot. The talkback for 99 Homes was also the most interesting, since director Ramin Bahrani talked about the research and work that went into the film.

This was my second Ebertfest. Last year, I worked as a volunteer/intern for the film festival, so I got to sneak into a couple films. I have to admit that this year has been hectic for me, so I didn’t realize Ebertfest was just around the corner until Professor Baird mentioned it in class. So, I scrambled over to Virginia Theater for the four o’clock show. I also must admit that I didn’t know which movie I would be watching.

This is something I noticed last year: the demographics at Ebertfest are not what one would call diverse. I felt young standing in the crowd in front of the theater. Perhaps it was because the show time was earlier in the day, but it was hard to find people who fit the typical university age range. It would be great if the film festival could expand its audience.

After a quick Google search of the film I would be watching, Moving Midway, the lights dimmed, and the feature began. Obviously, I had little to no expectation going into the film this way. Still, the premise sounded interesting. The plot centers on moving Midway Plantation. After generations of literally keeping their ground, the owners of the plantation (Charlie and Dena) decide to move the plantation.

The family is leaving behind decades of tradition. But, in the process of uprooting, basically, their legacy, the Hintons are discovering a new family history. As former slave owners, the family “bred two sets of Hintons, one white, one black” (Cheshire). The single act of moving Midway Plantation sheds lights on multiple themes: the definition of family, the visibility/invisibility of race, ownership, and the reclamation of history.

I’m actually glad that I went into this movie little expectations because I loved it. The story quickly draws in the audience; an hour and thirty minutes flies by. Another aspect that made this film so entertaining was the characters. I think I was laughing through most of the film. Each major character is so dynamic and witty; their personalities gave life to this documentary.

One of the most heartwarming parts of Moving Midway is being able to watch how the Hintons redefine what “family” means to them. The first Hinton family gathering is vastly different from the Hinton family gathering at the new Midway Plantation. It is fascinating to be able to see the “black” and “white” Hintons literally and figuratively coming together. Through this rediscovery of family, the Hintons are not only preserving tradition but also reclaiming their place in history. This reclamation of history is highlighted when the “black Hintons” are invited into the new Midway Plantation; one of the relatives asks if he can come in. This moment is both heartwarming and heart-wrenching. The fact that people who rightfully belong in this place find it hard to believe that they are allowed to enter the house is heart breaking. It also proves that we are not free from this moment in history. Racism is still very much a relevant issue.

Moving Midway is quietly heartwarming; there is nothing forced or inorganic about this documentary. I appreciate the depth beneath the humor and lightheartedness.

Cheshire, Godfrey. “Moving Midway.” IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2015. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1051245/>.

Although I didn’t get the chance to visit EbertFest 2015, I have been an avid reader of Roger Ebert’s film reviews for quite a long time. I particularly prefer his reviews to other top film critics because Ebert typically tried to see the positive things in movies, good or bad, and usually when he disliked a film, he was typically kind and constructive in his criticism whereas some other top critics are often just mean.

That being said I decided to go back and explore his reviews of two of my favorite movies of all time that happen to both star the incredibly multi-dimensional ‘funny-man’ Jim Carrey in movies that aren’t necessarily comedies.

Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet in my favorite still from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

In the first film I investigated, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, directed by Michael Gondry and written by Charlie Kaufman, I was not surprised to discover that Ebert gave it three and a half stars out of four. The film is about two emotionally isolated individuals who fell in love, fell out of love and hired a fictional service called “Lacuna Inc,” to erase the painful memories of their time together to help get over their relationship. If you haven’t seen it, I won’t say much more because it might spoil it for you, but I will say that it is a deep dive into the mystery of memory and the inevitability of history repeating itself. Ebert says of the film–

“Despite jumping through the deliberately disorienting hoops of its story, “Eternal Sunshine” has an emotional center, and that’s what makes it work. Although Joel and Clementine ping-pong through various stages of romance and reality, what remains constant is the human need for love and companionship, and the human compulsion to keep seeking it, despite all odds.”

The second film I chose to research was The Truman Show, directed by Peter Weir and written by Andrew Niccol and starring again Jim Carrey. Truman (Carrey) is the subject of a multi-decade reality show, of which he is unaware of, in a giant, highly controlled environment filled with hidden cameras and actors who he has believed to be his family, friends and even spouse for his entire life.

Probably my favorite still of any movie

Ebert gave this film a perfect score and if you watch it, I think you will understand why. The very beginning of his review of this film goes like this —

“The Truman Show is founded on an enormous secret that all of the studio’s advertising has been determined to reveal. I didn’t know the secret when I saw the film, and was able to enjoy the little doubts and wonderings that the filmmakers so carefully planted. If by some good chance you do not know the secret, read no further.”

While I may have already exposed a little bit of the plot, my favorite thing that Ebert said about this film is that “it brings into focus the new values that technology is forcing on humanity.” We were talking today in class about how we have the ability to have high-definition cameras essentially anywhere and everywhere and it is a little scary to consider for me at least because of the powers that can and may very well already exploit that ability.

           Michelangelo Antonioni’s Blow Up (1966) is the first non-traditional film that makes me feel so confused when I watched it for the first time. I had to watch three times in order to finish my paper for Blow Up. And it turns out that I like the film more and more after I watched more times. So I choose to compare my review with Roger Ebert’s review.

       The successful London photographer Thomas who has sexual life causally feels boring and depressing. He meet a mysterious beauty in the park and takes series of photos. After he goes back and blows up the photo, he finds out some detail and speculates that there is a murder.

While reading the Roger Ebert’s reviews, I find out what we think about “whether there is a murder or not” differently. Ebert believes that whether there was a murder isn’t the point. According to Ebert, Thomas is lost in his craft as he continually blows up his photograph. He is happy to do that. As Thomas moves between his darkroom and the blowups, Ebert analyzed that this bliss of an artist lost in what behaviorists call the Process. In this way, Thomas is driven by his own mind. By contrast, I think that the narration is restricted. We only know what the characters see.

I recognize the character of Thomas through the talk between him and the owner of store. But there is another character—the owner of the antique shop. She has a similar character as Thomas. While he asked that girl why she is selling the antiques store, she answered that she is fed up with antiques and considers moving out to another city. Later, as Thomas shared his photos with his collaborator Ron, he says that he is fed up with blonde skinny and wants a trip. The answers of them are mostly the same. They both get bored of their lives and seek something different. That’s also the reason that Thomas called and asked his boss to buy the junk store. But Ebert states the character of Thomas as a artist more.

I have lived around Champaign my entire life. Why haven’t I ever gone to Eberfest? I have no idea, but going for my first time convinced me that maybe I should have been there in previous years. The experience was awesome. I went to Eberfest on Thursday night to see The End of the Tour. I chose this movie specifically because I am obsessed with the show How I Met Your Mother and absolutely love Jason Segel. Since this was my first time going to Eberfest, I really didn’t know what to expect. The line was enormous to get into this film and I didn’t know if that was normal or not. I was lucky enough to be one of the last few people let into the theater.

Because I was one of the last ones in, I had to rush to find an empty seat (I found one in the balcony) and I ended up missing around the first 10 minutes of the film. I guess I’ll have to see it again (no complaints here!). This movie is about a Rolling Stone reporter writing a story about David Foster Wallace. Wallace spent his childhood in Champaign, so I thought that was a cool thing to have a guy who grew up locally have a movie made about him, which we were all watching in Champaign.

Part of the movie takes place in Bloomington-Normal (the home of Illinois State) and funnily enough, almost every time Bloomington was mentioned, the audience laughed. They story was compelling and had me interested throughout the duration of the film. A lot of comedic relief was thrown in and made the movie a fun experience. Both Jason Segel and Jesse Eisenberg are tremendous actors. I don’t want to give too much away for those who wish to see this film but to summarize it a bit: David Lipsky (the Rolling Stones journalist) comes out of the time he spent with David Foster Wallace with a much different perspective on him than he did first going in to visit with him.

Enjoying this film with everyone else was quite the experience, I always loved that aspect of movie going, seeing and hearing the reactions of others to the film. The director of the film, James Ponsoldt told the audience that Bloomington had never been received with laughter from the audience before, so I’d say seeing the movie in central Illinois was a unique experience. It was an excellent film that I’m sure will be nominated for many awards and I recommended everyone see it. It was an even better experience.

Batman has always been my favorite superhero of all time, so of course I was excited back in 2005 when I heard that there was going to be a new Batman movie. I really did not know what to expect, as the last Batman movie I had saw was the one with George Clooney. That one, in my opinion, was a bit of a dud. It didn’t focus much on the backstory of Batman and the whole movie seemed like a cheesy, unrealistic portrayal of Batman.

Then along came Christopher Nolan to make a new trilogy about Batman, starting with Batman Begins. I had no idea who Christian Bale was but was willing to give Batman Begins a shot because I had always wanted to see the origins of Batman take place on the big screen.

Roger Ebert gave this film 4 stars, so I think that it is safe to say he enjoyed it quite a bit. Ebert says that Batman Begins tracks Bruce Waynes path to becoming Batman from his childhood into his adulthood. He states that he likes the film so much better than earlier Batman films because it didn’t have the “gloss” of the other films, such as, the bat cave being under Wayne manner and the bat suit not being over the top. Ebert claims that after an eight year hiatius, with the help of Nolan, that the Batman franchices is finally on its way.

I guess Ebert knew what he was talking about because the trilogy went on to become one of the highest grossing trilogies in history. I really enjoyed this film because of the backstory, which led Bruce Wayne to becoming Batman, which most previous films tend to gloss over showing his parents dying then him wearing the bat suit in the next scene. This film laid the foundation for the rest of the trilogy, and all three films were great.

This was my first experience ever going to Ebertfest, and it was odd seeing a movie that so many viewers had such close personal ties to, given that David Foster Wallace is from Champaign, and that it was mainly set in Bloomington.  The crowd seemed to cheer during moments that to them had meaning given their setting, but I actually found that distracting given that it usually stood in contrast to the tone of whatever was actually going on in the film at the time.  The guy I wrote about this movie with said, “When they play Lebron’s biopic in Akron 30 years from now, I expect the audience will have a similar reaction.” I actually transferred here from the University of Minnesota originally, so to me it was cool seeing a movie set in mostly a place that I am now compared to a place that I left.  Overall Ebertfest was a cool experience for me, it reminded me of going to a local show back in high school when all the bands knew each other and everyone knew everyone else’s name.  The Virgina was beautiful, the crowd, as previously mentioned, was quite engaged with the films, and it’s something that I could see myself coming back to Champaign after graduation to experience again.  I wrote about the film for buzz magazine, we had two writers cover it to kind of play off of the fact that the film itself was about two writers, my thoughts on it are below.

An aspect of The End of the Tour that not many people are going to talk about, but should be recognized, is the quiet beauty of Ponsoldt’s visual choices. He strives to put his viewers within the scene, accomplishing this with hand-held camera work and natural lighting. Even on the enormous screen of the Virginia, watching this movie I was struck by how grounded I felt, how easy it was to lose myself in the conversations between Lipsky and Wallace, as if I were in the room with them and everything was happening right in front of me.

Jason Segel is essential to this film, without him it would lack any personality or momentum. The thing about artists, be they actors or writers, is that there is an aspect of alienation that comes with the territory of what they do. This story at its core is about the fears of a man who just wanted to be perceived as a normal guy, when the entire world wanted him to be something more than that. After Segel’s run on How I Met Your Mother, I came away thinking that he probably didn’t have to dig very deep to be able to understand Wallace. Maybe that’s why Eisenberg is so unconvincing as Lipsky – it’s difficult to summon any bitterness towards Wallace or his intelligence, and much easier to appreciate the sadness of his solitude.

Having never read Wallace, it was difficult to know whether to credit the biopic or the man himself with the casual but brilliant insights that Segel delivers from underneath his bandana. I’m inclined towards the later, which creates a conundrum when I try to put into words how I felt about this film. On one hand, I could sense how bowled over a younger, more impressionable version of myself would’ve been by this introduction to Wallace and his genius. But I also felt the conflict between the writers was forced; in part due to the film being too short and poorly paced, and also because of the portrayal of Lipsky as a one-dimensional narcissist. Despite these flaws, this will be a lot of people’s favorite film of the year and I understand why. The portrayal of Wallace manages to capture what so many other films fail to – that depression isn’t always best represented by dark clouds and sad songs, but rather as a scratching insecurity on a life that is otherwise beautiful.

I’m always nervous and excited to look at Roger Ebert’s reviews for films that I like, because more often than not, he doesn’t like them, but I still end up learning his reasoning behind his dislikes. So when I decided to look at his review for Tarsem Singh’s The Fall, I was expecting his to say that it was nothing more than a series of pretty pictures, and that he hated it. I was pleasantly surprised to find that he gave the film a four-star rating. While the gist of his article was that it was a bunch of beautiful shots tied together by a less than stellar plot, he had an appreciation for the amount of work that went into the film.

In his review, Ebert mentions a Variety article that calls The Fall a vanity project. I remember reading that article and thinking something similar to what Ebert articulates: “you can only admire the man vain enough to make it.” I was awed by the film’s lack of CGI, and yet it is so visually stunning that you think that the director must be lying to you.

The film is a about a young girl, Alexandria, and an injured stuntman Roy (Lee Pace). Roy tells Alexandria stories, and the film generates the images based on Alexandria’s imagination of said stories. There isn’t much more to the plot, but I don’t think there needs to be.

I don’t think that I have ever agreed so whole-heartedly with one of Ebert’s reviews, and while I do still love reading the reviews that do not share my opinion, it’s nice when there is common ground between us every once in a while.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-fall-2008