I attended one of the discussion panels that the 2015 Ebertfest offered, but with the new Jurassic Park movie coming out this summer, and knowing that Roger Ebert had a review on it; I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to analysis the film and the review for myself, with all the new intelligence gained about productions from MACS 395.

Don’t get me wrong, Roger is of course a great writer filled with respectable opinions on film, but most of this analysis will consist of me rebutting a few of Roger’s points, because this was, and still, is one of favorite films growing up.  Roger gave this film a 3 out of 4 stars, and though this is a relatively high rating from Roger, I strongly believe one more star to represent perfection was deserved.

Roger wanted more than just being able to see dinosaurs and suspense, he said as wanted to see more and feel more of that “sense of grandeur to them”, like when they view the dinosaurs for the first time.

Personally, this is one of my favorite scene, but after this scene, as a viewer, all I wanted was to see more dinosaurs. I was already in awe, and believed anymore moments like this would’ve been too much, though there is another one of these “grandeur than them” moments.

So Roger not only got one, but two of these moments. For me, a third one would have been too much. So Steven Spielberg was in the right to only emphasis a few of these moments.

Roger also criticized Spielberg’s decision to introduce the T-Rex early on in the film, compared to his decisions in his film like Jaw’s, where he waited an hour into the film to introduce the monster. Of course, I have to disagree with Roger yet again, this film is already filled with so much suspense and anticipation that the viewer would not find it entertaining to wait for the monster to appear for an hour, but yet would find annoying the wait annoying instead. Also, the viewer would’ve been lost, and not know how truly scary the T-Rex is if not shown for at least a little but. For me, showing the T-Rex early on made me understand their fear throughout the movie, and helped me relate as a viewer. Again, aside from Roger’s views, revealing the monster of the film early on was a superb move from Spielberg.

JURASSIC PARK, 1993. ©Universal/courtesy Everett Collection

“You want dinosaurs you get dinosaurs.”, says Roger in regards to this film, but not on such a delighted note.  On the other hand, I was delighted that I got to see dinos I wanted to see. This film is after all called, Jurassic Park, for a reason.

He thinks that more character development should have occurred, and that the storyline could’ve gone further into the human experience, but Spielberg knew this movie was not about that. He gave the people what they wanted, and they responded in the way he wanted with excitement and most of all, profit. Spielberg today is a big name for a reason, he knows what he is doing when it comes to structuring films. Even though he didn’t go the route Roger would have desired the most, the route he did take allowed him to get the scare factor that he wanted. The scare factor that people, today, still get scared with, and continue to talk about 22 years later.

This is my second year of Ebertfest as it is only my second year on campus. There is always something about sitting in front of the screen surrounded by people at Ebertfest. There is an atmosphere of pure adoration and admiration of what is being projected. There is not a peep during the show. Everyone remains seated. No one has gets up to use the restroom, there is no one checking their phone. You are surrounded by people who love film. And that is magic in itself.

I had already seen Ida, because as a fanatic, I watch all Oscar nominated movies before the awards are presented. But this was the only showing that I could make this week. Ida mesmerized, shocked, disgusted, and amazed all who watched it. A black and white masterpiece, reminiscent of a mixed Bergman-Truffaut aesthetic, this film takes the topic of religion and boils it down to one simple question: does it matter? With a lengthy response of, it doesn’t. It seems to be suggesting that all that matters is a devotion to a moral code, a devotion to morality, and a desire to be a better person.

In one of the most intense suicide scenes I have ever been exposed to, Anna’s aunt, Wanda kills herself after finding out that her son had been killed by the people that were harboring him. It seems that her reason for having loose morals has been shattered and the reality of her past has come to haunt her. Where Anna, destroys the thought of her past, rather sticking to the moral code that has served her well throughout the years.

It is a very silent movie. There is no filler noise, and no soundtrack of sorts. As well as it does not have any loud imagery or colors (as it is black and white). The composition never succeeds in distracting from the darkness of the narrative and leaves audiences stunned in admitting how much emotion can be felt from such a bland movie.

One of the best films of all time. And Roger knew it.

Goodfellas is possibly Martin Scorsese’s best film; it draws you in with a hook from the very beginning and doesn’t seem to let you go till the very end. With the 1st pan, the viewer wants a gun. With the second, he wants to go and steal a car. You get the point. As Ebert highlights, “unearned privilege” is at the center of this movie, and we all want a piece of it. Scorsese seems to glorify everything about a gangster’s life; from the drugs, to the money, to the women, etc. It is a signature move of his. He glorifies what society tends to deem as the lowest of the low and continues to rectify and redeem that glorification towards the end of his narratives. It is hard not to get sucked in and want to live Henry’s life when the movie is known for one of the best tracking shots of all time. Even his style reflects the utmost desire to embed the viewer into a POV type of experience.

Ebert talks about how the shots in the beginning of the movie, when Henry seems to enter the gangster life, are expansive and spacious in order to reflect the effect that the “life” has on Henry. It opens up a whole new world for him. He has whatever he needs. But most importantly he has dignity and respect. Towards the end of the film, when drugs and paranoia take over, both those things fly out the window. With them, so does the shooting style. Every shot becomes claustrophobic and limited. The camera seems to be choking Henry and, by proxy, the viewer. So we, as viewers, take the full ride with Henry. The upswing of entering the life and enjoying all its luxuries down to the pettiness of drug induced paranoia and ultimate betrayal of the mafia.

Scorsese has his signature type of film. His style has continued into today with films like The Wolf of Wallstreet. But he hasn’t reached heights like Goodfellas since the film came out, when considering first-person crime narratives. I guess an epic can never be repeated.

‘Ida’ English Movie Poster

I wasn’t able to attend Ebertfest this year due to it being during an inconvenient point in my schedule, but after looking at the movies that they were screening, I knew I wanted to see ‘Ida’. Luckily enough I saw that ‘Ida’ was on Netflix, so I put aside a night and settled in to watch the 2015 Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award winner.

‘Ida’ follows a young, orphaned girl raised as a nun who is ordered to visit her only known relative, her aunt, before she takes her vows. Among their first interactions with each other, her aunt, Wanda, tells her to try some worldly sins before taking her vows.

Wanda Gruz, Ida’s aunt

With this visit, Ida discovers her family’s past, and witnesses a life drastically different from her chaste one in Wanda. After the visit, both go back to living their lives as they were, but both seem heavily affected by their experience– Ida seems to lose interest in convent life, and Wanda eventually breaks and ends her life. In the last stretch of the film, Ida is seen donning Wanda’s clothing, tries smoking, drinking, and flirts with love; but ultimately slips away from all that and is shown walking through the countryside, presumably back to the convent.

Flirting with love.

I personally really enjoyed this movie. It was very reminiscent of the French New Wave, and reminded me of François Truffaut’s ‘400 Blows,’ with the slow moving shots, and long takes. I also found it interesting how they chose to frame a lot of their shots. In many, the characters are either off center, or shown in the bottom half or third of many shots.

Shot Framing

Shot Framing

End Shot from ‘400 Blows’

Unfortunately, I was not able to attend Ebertfest this year because it kind of fell awkwardly into my schedule. When the idea was first suggested in class I was pretty excited about the assignment. I’ve heard about Ebertfest a bunch throughout my time at UIUC, and was glad I was finally given an excuse to go check it out.

Before I knew that I was going to be unable to attend, I had picked out which film I would’ve gone to seen. It would’ve been The End of Tour, which was based on the meeting between David Foster Wallace – played by Jason Segel – and David Lipski. I had chosen this film primarily because I was familiar with both David Foster Wallace and Jason Segel.

Hopefully, I’ll get to see this film in the near future because I was really looking forward to it. Also, I’ve read some of the other posts on this page and everyone who was lucky enough to see it seemed to really like it.

Chaz Ebert with 99 Homes actor and filmmaker

This was my first year attending Ebertfest, and I really regret not going last year. As a freshman last year, I wasn’t familiar with the film festival, but I do remember a friend mentioning it to me a week before it began. I had looked into it very briefly and saw that Spike Lee’s ‘Do the Right Thing’ was going to play. I had seen the movie before and loved it. I looked into going but saw it was sold out so I ended my efforts there. I was also a little skeptical that Spike Lee was actually going to be there, because I knew absolutely nothing about the festival and its legacy. If I hadn’t been so ignorant about Ebertfest, I would’ve known that even if a film sells out, you can show up half an hour early to get tickets, and that Spike Lee wasn’t only going to be there, he would be participating in a Q&A about the film. Although I do I wish I hadn’t missed out on this once in a lifetime opportunity, I’m glad that I got involved this year and I hope to continue attending Ebertfest even after I graduate.

In the other MACs class I’m taking we had the opportunity to volunteer at Ebertfest for extra credit. When I registered for the class it said we would have the chance to intern at Ebertfest, and that was one of the major reasons I signed up for it. Unfortunately they changed it this year so we couldn’t intern, but we still had the option to get involved. I signed up to volunteer for the festival, and was assigned to work the green room. I was pretty excited for that because as it was explained to me the green room was where all the actors and filmmakers ate, so we would have a chance to meet them. However when I showed up that wasn’t exactly the case. Most of the people that came through to eat were people who lived around Champaign and had donated to the festival. Our only job was to check and make sure everyone had green festival passes. But after almost turning away a few filmmakers and a man who turned out to be the festival director for not having green passes, we realized that the only people showing up were supposed to be there, and many of them didn’t have green passes. After that we kind of gave up on the whole green pass thing, so my job was pretty much just to greet people, which was a little awkward and not really necessary. The next time I volunteer at Ebertfest I definitely would prefer to work the theater.

I only made it to one film, which ended up being 99 Homes. I had been hoping to go to The End of the Tour mostly because Jason Segel was going to be at the Q&A. I had read on the website that if you didn’t have a ticket, you could show up a half hour early to try to get in. It also said that they hadn’t turned anyone away in 13 years, so I was fairly confident we’d get in. However I had completely underestimated how popular Jason Segel is, especially among college kids. When we got there, the line was all the way down the block, and it was 95% students. We were a little nervous when we saw how many people were in front of us, but we stayed hopeful. As the line started moving, we got closer and closer to the theater until we were standing under the Virginia Theater lights, just a few people left in front of us. This was the point when they told us the theater was 100% full and there was no way they could fit anyone else. That was definitely one of the more disappointing moments of my life. But in the end everything worked out okay because I got to see 99 Homes and I really enjoyed it. I knew absolutely nothing about it going into it, and I personally think that’s the best way to see a film. I also really liked the Q&A, because the director Ramin Bahrani was able to be there. In the time before Roger’s death, Ramin had grown very close to him and actually dedicated 99 Homes to Roger. It was clear how much he cares about and believes in Ebertfest, and how appreciative he is to the community and of course Roger.

As much as I enjoyed the screening of 99 Homes, my favorite part of Ebertfest happened on Thursday morning. I was walking through downtown Champaign on my way to volunteer for the green room, when I turned the corner onto a street and saw a man sitting on a park bench. He was alone, smoking a cigarette and drinking a coffee, and there was no one else on the street. As I got closer, I realized that this man was none other than Jason Segel. I was too shocked to do anything other than smile and say hi as I walked by, but I was pleased when he did the same and said hi back. Even though that probably was the perfect opportunity to talk to him, he seemed to be pretty peaceful just sitting there and I didn’t want to bother him. Plus I still got to tell everyone that Jason Segel said hi to me.