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.

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/>.