I just saw Bruce Kirkland on CBC News acting as a mouthpiece for the fluffy thesis that TIFF is no longer ?the people?s festival.?  The basis of his argument is that the average guy can?t dance on the red carpet with Brad Pitt.

I guess this is the news angle:  It?s hard to get tickets for massive gala premieres with a bunch of huge celebs.  All the tickets are going to evil corporate sponsors.  Maybe ol? Bruce should take an economics class.  If there is a hot ticket and limited supply ? that creates?DEMAND! 

Let me provide my own newsflash:  Festivals need sponsors, sponsors have money.  If Mr. Kirkland doesn?t like this premise perhaps he?ll be willing to make a multimillion dollar donation so that guys as common, pure-hearted and salt-of-the-earth as himself can rub shoulders with top celebs. 

Maybe Bruce has been too busy watching DVD screeners to get out to C?est Pas Moi, Je Le Jure, a work of genius I saw plenty of regular people at.  I?ve seen regular people everywhere I?ve been:  The much-anticipated Pontypool, the ultra-hip When Life Was Good, even the hottest Canadian ticket Cooper?s Camera was full of normals, many sitting in the immediate vicinity of Jason Jones and Sam Bee.

I guess quaint old Bruce thinks the people shouldn't settle for these opportunities. If they can?t wrap their arm around George Clooney at least once, is it really worth their while?

The Canadian Film Programme is exceptionally good at illustrating why Canada is such an amazing country.  One night I?m getting a taste of rural Quebec in the 1960?s, the next I get a sense of what life is like for a drunken poet in Newfoundland, over the weekend it was Inuit life in the 1840?s.

However, films like Under Rich Earth prove programmers aren?t afraid of selections critical of Canadian entities like Ascendant Copper. 

It?s the inspiring tale of Ecuadorian villagers who simply want to say no to a Canadian junior mining interest (Ascendant, who recently changed their name,  takes on difficult opportunities, and when they show promise, sell to major congolmerates) that wants to exploit their pristine wilderness.  The people burn down an initial mining site and this prompts mining-magnates to fire back with paramilitary force.

They underestimate their opponents? intelligence.  The film?s subjects are savvy enough to record every altercation from every angle, so when the rich mining interests blatantly lie, viewers of Malcom Rogge?s film are perfectly aware just what type of dishonest creeps they are.

Besides being an eye opening glimpse of the heartless, or perhaps more fairly, ignorant nature of big business, Under Rich Earth is also an inspiring tale of how a small community can fight exploitive, wealthy enemies and win without violence. 

These types of stories interest me.  I read the World section of the newspaper.  But I had never heard of this conflict, and to be honest, reading about it probably wouldn?t inspire much emotion in me.

Rogge?s broad examination provides the necessary context to truly understand an issue reflective of a major world trend of aggressive, uncaring globalization that has no qualms taking from a society while giving nothing back. 

They have the appropriate paperwork and an ability to spin the situation for the small minority of reporters who actually focus on difficult issues rather than slowly rotting at their gross desks, reading wire stories and drinking coffee for 90 to 95% of their meaningless day.  So why should Ascendant Copper care so long as the dividends keep pouring in?  They don?t.  So these dedicated, down-to-earth people stood up to them.

That?s why it?s satisfying to watch a film like Rogge?s.  He cares so much about his subjects he broke down sobbing while reading an email from one.  This is one for the good guys.

?An indictment of governmental largesse, environmental exploitation and corporate greed, Under Rich Earth is urgent and vital filmmaking in the spirit of past Festival favourites like Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance and Manufactured Landscapes. Emotionally gripping and politically motivating, Under Rich Earth exposes the truth ? not just about what happened that singular day, but also about just how pervasive such stories are on our planet today,? writes Jesse Wente in his program note.

Tickets are still available for the two remaining screenings: Today at 2:45 and Saturday at 3:30 pm both at AMC.

There was a bit of a politically-charged brew-ha-ha at the screening of Maman Est Chez Le Coiffeur last night.  First let?s give the film its due, its an elegiac story of a troubled childhood which shares the exact themes as C?est Pas Moi, Je Le Jure, and Un Ete Sans Point Ni Coup Sur.  Fine company indeed.  The three films would make an ideal weekend bill at Cinematheque Ontario sometime. 

It?s no secret filmmakers have been unusually political at this year?s fest.  Concerns over what a majority Conservative government could due to crucial agencies like Telefilm has filmmakers like Francis Leclerc encouraging audiences not to vote Harper.

So it seemed a fair enough question for programmer Matthew Hays to pose.  He wasn?t even being overtly political at first, only quoting what?s been said so far. Rumours around the TIFF office suggest Hays is actually a Goldwater Republican at heart. (joking)

?The last few nights when we?ve been doing these Q and A?s invariably a producer says they?re really alarmed when they look at Telefilm and all these agencies being cut.  Polls seem to indicate a Conservative majority.  One of the filmmakers said last night:  ?I will not vote for Harper and I encourage you not to vote for Harper? and I haven?t heard anything like that at a film festival in a while,? said Hays.

?Why do you have to ruin this film with politics?? shouted the first angry right-winger.

?I?m not trying to ruin it,? said Hays.  I buy that.  Why would a TIFF programmer want to ruin one of the films he?s been advocating for months on premiere night?

?The only reason I bring it up is because we don?t have the money that Hollywood has and a lot of producers have been bringing it up so isn?t that a fair question??

?Hey maybe you can?t see the audience for the lights, can we ask a question?? demanded another angry Harper-ite.  At this point a number of mostly older people began shuffling out of the theatre, or interrupting the Q and A with a style of rancour any fan of Question Period can recognize as being downright Harper-esque.

In another TIFF/Parliament parallel the audience was loaded with liberals, but in typical fashion they were too polite (or meek) to shout anything back at their Conservative counterparts.  They did applaud with vigour after the producer came to Hays? defense with this call to action however:

?It?s a fair enough question because our film was financed by Telefilm and by Quebec agencies.  This government thinks we don?t need art.?

Below are links to articles by the Star?s Peter Howell and CBC.CA on the Telefilm funding issue. The third link is another article by Howell discussing the three French Canadian films mentioned above.

http://www.thestar.com/article/487456

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2008/09/05/arts-cuts-protest.html

I?m not going to lie to you because we all know the blog is a highly respected journalistic medium:  I?ve got a bit of a movie-crush on Kristine Cofsky.  Presumably any red-blooded admirer of women will feel the same way if they catch tomorrow?s screening of When Life Was Good. 

When you watch a movie like Funny HaHa and the cute protagonist makes you squirm with affection there?s not much you can do about it.  But as a TIFF blogger I can at least interview Cofsky, so I did.

Let it be said however, that even if she weren?t in the top 1% of the most desirable people on the planet, I would still be fascinated by Cofsky?s pitch-perfect performance in When Life Was Good and she eloquently manages to bring the focus of the interview back to this.

1) I notice we have a mutual friend in Aaron Hutchinson...what do you think of that bastard?

Small world!  Aaron and I both live in Vancouver, and we worked together on a feature film called Smile of April.

2) Describe your past collaboration with Terry Miles and how this project came to be?

Terry and I had known each other for a little over a year when we started filming When Life Was Good.  We met when he auditioned me for a film called Yumi In Love, which I then worked on. I had also worked with him on numerous short films before WLWG.  The project came to be because Terry wanted to make a film and had a camera and some wireless mics, but no budget.  We all got together and discussed ideas and characters, and then started filming pretty much right away.  Terry would work on a loose script and storyline for the scenes the night before we shot them.

3) There was a lot of wine-drinking in the film, were you drinking real wine Cassavetes/Husbands style?

There may have been some real wine-drinking going on. :)

4) The film has been compared to a JD Salinger short story and there's a Salinger reference in the movie, do you have a favourite Salinger story?

As far as I can remember, the only Salinger stories I've read are Franny and Zooey and Catcher In The Rye.

6) I compared When Life Was Good to "mumblecore" movies like Funny HaHa, or say, Mutual Appreciation. It seemed like a fairly obvious comparison but I didn't see anyone else making it. I know it's a very stupid word, but has "mumblecore" (I don't even like typing it) become a dirty word that films like this want to distance themselves from?

Before doing this film, I had actually never heard of "mumblecore" before.  The guided improvisation style was a new concept for me, and I loved the process.  I learned an unbelievable amount working on this film.

7) Tell us about some of the other films you've been in.

I actually just finished working on another film with Terry called The Red Rooster. (Casey Manderson from WLWG is in it with me as well)  Keep an eye out for it!

8) Favourite film?

Oooh, that question.  I can't even begin to pick a favorite film, only because it is constantly changing for me.

9) What have you seen at the Festival this year?

I just saw Kristian Levrings Fear Me Not today, and it blew me away.  I thought it was fantastic.

10) Why are you so ridiculously charming and attractive in When Life Was Good? I understand the attractiveness is an inherent trait. But is the character's charm an extension of your personality?

Fist of all, thank you, that is so nice of you to say. 

Because of the style in which the film was shot, I think that all of us had huge elements of our real personalities come through, even though the characters themselves were completely fictional.  Because most of the scenes were guided improv, it was easier to forget the camera was there and forget that you were acting out a scene.  There is so much real listening and reacting involved when you are working without a script 70% of the time, which is why I was talking before about how much I learned working on the film. 

Catch the last screening Thursday at 2pm at AMC.

----Stinky old Aaron Hutchinson----

Cassavetes comparisons are thrown out often these days.  Filmmakers with inexpensive cameras go out of focus and immediately get compared to one of the masters.  But Carl Bessai?s Mothers & Daughters actually tackles the themes of Cassavetes and comes out looking like a film that booze-loving Greek maniac would have cried at.  Bessai is a filmmaker who obviously loves actors in the way the almost self-destructively passionate Cassavetes did. 

If a comparison to John-boy weren?t flattering enough, Mothers & Daughters is also being compared to a Robert Altman film.  On one level it?s an easy comparison because it?s an ensemble piece with several narrative threads involving middle-aged women, but the deeper themes of Altman are present as well.

?It is a combination of Cassavetes and Altman.  Cassavetes usually improvised in smaller groups like in Husbands or the dinner party in A Woman Under The Influence.  But this film has a broader reach that Altman would have, particularly in the dinner scene and that interest in women?s lives and their perspectives that you see in a number of Altman movies like Three Women,? said Steve Gravestock.

At the after party Bessai and I debated the merits of The Killing of a Chinese Bookie versus Faces and Shadows, a real treat for me.  Here are some of Bessai?s observations:

?A Woman Under the Influence is one of my favourite movies, Cassavetes was a kind of messy filmmaker who cared deeply about actors, you don?t watch him for perfection or technical execution, you watch it for amazing discoveries in acting, you watch it for people who are real.? 

?What director can?t be influenced by Cassavetes?  More and more we?re packaging.  People always talk about packaging like it?s a commodity.  Cassavetes would never have packaged a movie.  The best directors avoid this, Fassbinder, Mike Leigh.?

?He had to do this stuff, think back, in his day he was not respected as filmmaker so he had to find a way.  It?s beautiful and ironic that America claims Cassavetes as this independent voice.?

?He created films that were honest and truthful and found empathy in simple beautiful things and it defied the industrial machine.  We can do that more now than ever and yet few filmmakers do.  If you look at HD they still make the cameras big and clunky.

What?s amazing about little camcorders is they aren?t intrusive.  The actors are free to roam in real space, and we shot the movie in real space.?

I told him I considered Mothers & Daughters the ideal synthesis of Cassavetes and Altman.  While Cassavetes is heartbreaking, it?s challenging.  Suburban moms like my own find A Woman Under The Influence depressing, or too difficult, however, a snappy Altman ensemble easily keeps anyone interested.

?Altman?s a master at weaving different narratives together in climactic archs that weave together at the right time.  The way he surprises narratively is amazing. These are mavericks and it?s amazing the authority they had in the industry, and I think it?s sad they had to die before they got their recognition.  They?re telling us the truth about so many things that we know and relate to,? said Bessai.

I haven?t mentioned the Gena Rowlands-like performances of the incredible actresses in this film.  Nor did I discuss how wonderful it is to see a portrait of truly Canadian women.  You?ll have to watch the film I guess.

You can do so Thursday at 8:45 or Friday at 2:45 at the Varsity.

Everyone is buzzing about the deliriously funny performances of Samantha Bee, Jason Jones and Mike Beaver in Cooper?s Camera.  What?s amazing is that the child/teen actors in the film are operating on about the same level. 

I caught up with Nick McKinlay and Dylan Everett on our way to the after-party and hit them with these questions:

Nick

1) Did you do any hermaphrodite research?  It's a fascinating subject.

Umm, yes I spent a couple months with some flatworms and mollusks, you know--really got into their headspace.

 2) Did you ever have a gender-inappropriate toy like the pink pony your character is given?
 

Thankfully my toys consisted almost entirely of Jurassic Park merchandise so even if I did receive a pink pony it would have been quickly devoured by the T.Rex or raptors or a crazed Ian Malcolm after being bitten by a poisonous triceratops with rabies...
 
3) Is it easier to pick up babes if you are in a film with tonnes of TIFF buzz?

Well, I would imagine it would be.  However my situation is a little different, unfortunately Marcus Cooper isn't exactly a "sex pot" waiting to burst.  And I would also assume that any of the clips in the film where I am not wearing a shirt or am howling like a wookie (sometimes both) would negate all potenial babe-up-picking.  

4) Do you shamelessly promote yourself on Facebook with regards to this film?  If not, I suggest you start immediately.  I would have a picture with me and Dave Foley and it would say, "Me and my best pal Dave Foley" or something.

I don't actually, however I have been compulsively googling myself/the film.  It's like more natural than checking my email now haha.  I know it sounds vain and whatnot, but I'm excited. I mean when I used to google image myself and it would be like some forty-year-old dude with a fro and a handlebar mustache, now it's me sitting on a couch with Jason Jones and Samantha Bee!  Pretty unreal.

5) How old are you?
  

Almost old enough to drink, not old enough to grow a proper beard...I'm eighteen.



6) Tell me a bit about your acting experience before Cooper?s Camera.
       

My acting experience has mostly been with with my high school drama club back in Sarnia, ON.  As well as a couple local films and like two lines on a Disney channel show.

7) Which cast member made you laugh the hardest?

Ummm I would call it a tie between absolutely everyone in the cast, I'm sure there will be a whole blooper reel on the DVD of just me ruining takes by laughing haha, even in the final cut there's a couple split seconds moments where I'm smiling, that's not right, Marcus Cooper doesn't really have anything to smile about.

8) What?s the funniest thing that happened to you on-set?
       

I would say the entire filming of the scene where we are all in the car on our way to the tobogganing hill, just driving recklessly around a very quaint suburban neighborhood while Mike and Jay improvised off each other for like ten minutes, it was chaotic and hilarious and I will never forget it.

9) What?s next for you?
      

 I'm studying English at UofT right now in my first year, and well, hopefully I will catch someone's eye and have the opportunity to be in more films.

10) Have you been to any Festival films, if so what?
       

I went and saw Vinyan, which was fantastic, and I've got tickets to Zack and Miri Make a Porno and Pontypool.

11) What do your parents think of the movie?
       

My parents are very proud of myself and everyone, thankfully they share the film's ummm, interesting brand of humour haha.

12) Were you a Daily Show fan going into the project?
        

Very much so, but I was even more of a Ham & Cheese fan, in fact a I saw it like a month before before being cast in Cooper's and all of a sudden it was like "Holy shit I'm making a movie with these people!" It was very surreal.

13) Who would you be more afraid of if they got mad at you, Sam Bee or Jason Jones, why?
       

Umm, Jason by default simply because Sam is so sweet and motherly I can't even picture her being mad or scary, they were both very patient with me and all my "first feature naivete".  I learned so much from both of them as professionals and as people.

14) What?s been the best part of this experience for you?
      

 The eleven days we spent shooting Cooper's was simultaneously the most insane, stressful, whirlwind, riotous, and rewarding experience of my entire life.  It was a crash course in movie making and I couldn't be more happy that I got to work with Warren and the rest of the amazing group of of people that contributed to the film. Oh, and meeting Dave Foley was pretty cool too.

Dylan

1) How old are you?  13 

2) Tell me a bit about your acting experience before Cooper?s Camera.
     I've done a couple of feature films (Breakfast with Scot, The Devil's Mercy) and a few roles for television (The Dresden Files, Booky, The Latest Buzz) and a few short films.

3) Which cast member made you laugh the hardest?  Wow...that's a hard one. Mike Beaver's character was just so ridiculous and over the top and nothing like him in real life....that always made me laugh. But I had a hard time keeping a straight face with Jason Jones' when I was in a scene with him...his facial expressions and the way he said something always cracked me up. The same with Nick McKinley....they were really all so funny!

4) What?s the funniest thing that happened to you on-set?  Probably when I had to put on the prosthetic. It was a little embarrassing, but it cracked up the crew.

5) What?s next for you?  I just completed filming a pilot for a TV series for the Family Channel and next week I start shooting another TV movie for the CBC.

6) Have you been to any Festival films, if so what?  No, I haven't...it was hard enough to get tickets for my own movie! Plus we live out of town, so it's hard for me to get in to see them late at night.

7) What do your parents think of the movie?  My dad hasn't seen it yet, but my Mom couldn't stop laughing. She says it's one of the funniest movies she's ever seen....

8) Were you a Daily Show fan going into the project?  Not really...I had heard of it because my parents watched it but it was always on late at night so I couldn't watch it all the time. After I got the part in the movie, I made an effort to catch it and now I'm hooked. Sam and Jason are so good in it...now I know why that show is so popular! 

9) Who would you be more afraid of if they got mad at you, Sam Bee or Jason Jones, why?  Sam Bee because I know I can run faster than Jason Jones...chuckle... 

10) What?s been the best part of this experience for you?  Without a doubt, working with this amazing cast and crew. Comedy is my favorite thing to do and I had the chance to work with some of the best comedic actors in the business. I just watched and learned. Warren and the crew were so nice to me and they all worked so hard on this film to get it right. I am so happy to be a part of it and happy that people like it.

Screens Wednesday at 2:45 and Friday at 6pm at AMC.

It was the type of day that reminds you how dynamic and interesting this country?s history really is.

Set around the time of first contact for the Inuit, approximately 1840, and shot in northern Quebec, the cinematography and narrative strength of Before Tommorow is stunning.  Stark miles of snow have always looked wonderful on film, and the Inuit people?s struggle against nature is a fascinating topic, especially from the perspective of today?s typically coddled Canadian.

 Atanarjuat (The Fast Runner) and The Journals of Knud Rasmussen share these qualities and their success paved the way for feature length cinematic studies of the far north.  Zacharias Kunuk and Norman Cohn, directors of those respective films, both served as producers on Before Tommorow.

?Thank you very much for having me here, I never thought I?d be at this type of event,? said co-director and star Madeline Piujuq Ivalu (pictured above with a translator).  It?s been a long and interesting road for Ivalue, who first started working with Arnait Video Productions in 1991.  The company was founded by Montreal?s Marie-Hélène Cousineau, M.F.A. to provide a voice to a fascinating culture we don?t catch too much of on CBC Newsworld.

It?s the tale of a grandmother and her daughter who must struggle to survive after their family is killed.  They battle the elements, tell stories and share something valuable that doesn?t seem available in modern culture.

The opening and closing sequences of the film are incredibly powerful.  The opening montage where familial camaraderie is exchanged over a fresh kill is somehow reminiscent of Michel Brault?s Pour La Suite Du Monde.  The final moments of the struggle are accented by a touch of such raw beauty it would be unfair to spoil it.

A theme song by Kate and Anna McGarrigle captures the profound mystery of the film magically.

The next screenings are Tueday at 8:15 and Friday at 9:30, both at the Varsity. 

Cooper?s Camera has generated enough interest that I probably don?t need to describe the hilarity of it here. Except to say it easily lived up to the hype at last night?s premiere, and Jason Jones? career trajectory may now resemble Steve Carell?s after he was so ideally showcased in The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Cooper?s Camera is an equally perfect showcase for Jones? talents both as over-the-top funnyman and wry everyman.  Don?t forget he also co-wrote the script.

Jones and fellow Daily Show correspondent (and wife) Samantha Bee showed off their usual dry wit during the Q and A.  Bee went into a diatribe about how much of an asshole Jones was, setting up Jones for a deadpan:  ?I love my wife.?

Then it was co-writer/co-star Mike Beaver?s turn to take a few shots, answering a question regarding the film?s fight scenes with tales of Jones?s real-life cowardice.  In college, when the burly Beaver was preparing for some kind of group brawl he hoped for Jones?s backup only to see him running in the opposite direction.  Bizarrely, Beaver says something similar happened after Jones jumped on a bubble-wrapped hobo.  Allegedly he didn?t know the hobo was under the bubble wrap and screamed like a girl and ran away.  These stories should probably be taken with a grain of salt. 

The producers, at Jesse Wente?s gracious urging, were kind enough to get me into the after-party, a swanky affair at Lobby, across from the ROM.  The interior décor of the place is ideal for a post-film after party, with trailers of the film showing on a variety of ultra-modern screens, the coolest of which was a star atop a Christmas Tree. 

That wasn?t the only effort to take advantage of this being a Christmas film.  A bearded Santa and photographer were hired.  Initially I was envious of this position as a number of attractive girls sat on his lap two at a time.  But after about an hour he looked worn out.  By the time Mike Beaver sat on his lap with another fair-sized man I wondered how much the kid was getting paid.

Catch the next screenings either Wednesday at 2:45pm or Friday at 6pm, both at AMC.

Canadian mumblecore?  Ya.  Canadian Cassavettes?  You got it.

Terry Miles naturalistic composition When Life Was Good evokes both of those genres, but in a way, it?s kind of better.  And Cassavetes is my favourite human being of all time.  It?s like the movie Cassavetes would make if he was the funniest man in Canada.  Throw Ben Gazzara in this bad-boy for ten minutes and I?d probably faint from the euphoria.

?The film has a hazy, slightly stoned look, and is edited elliptically, as if the director, though obviously charmed by his principals' numerous foibles, is aware that his characters talk a lot of crap, and thought eavesdropping a more appropriate, kinder introduction. It feels like a Cassavetes movie minus the rancour,? writes Steve Gravestock, Associate Director of the Canadian Film Programme.  So you see, I?m not just going crazy here with the Casavettes comparison, the man himself Steve Gravestock thinks so as well.

The story is simple, ridiculously hip and sexy.  Twenty-something artists drink wine, yuck it up, have friendships that turn into ill-advised love affairs, you know the drill.  The actors have a natural rapport as in most films of the genre, but it?s the side-splitting takes of hyper-ridiculous agents and silly-serious actors that make this something more than what the Duplass brothers or the Harvard educated Andrew Bujalski are doing.  

Also, the women in this film are insanely sexy.  None of them look like Natalie Portman or anything, they look like real girls that would be easy to be friends with and inevitably fall for.  This would only be an option if you are super handsome (in a scruffy, boyish way) and funny.  I am neither of these things but the breathtaking Kristine Cofsky (pictured above) did smile at me I swear!

Again, if you enjoy hip flicks like Hannah Takes the Stairs or the recent Baghead, you may actually like this better. 

Most modern zombie flicks are so loaded with CGI baloney that by the 5^th head explosion it?s pretty hard to care.  In Bruce McDonalds ?conversational zombie? pic Pontypool the only digital effect necessary was a Don Imus-inspired cowboy hat.

World-class Canadian thespian Stephen McHattie felt his shock-jock who?s fallen from grace needed a hat not unlike the style McDonald has famously worn for years. Unfortunately working on a tight shooting schedule with only $10 million, McDonald was told the hat would slow down the lighting process.

Luckily Maple Pictures, realizing they have a movie on their hands that could potentially earn $100 million for a mere $10, asked the Canadian auteur if there was anything he needed a little extra money for.  The hat was digitally placed on McHattie?s head in almost every scene, and it would be impossible to notice if McDonald didn?t choose to spill the beans.

Enough about digital hats though.  I?m a zombie guy.  Always have been.  Romero?s original Dawn of the Dead is without question my favourite horror film.  So it was with enthusiasm I went to  Diary of the Dead and the other films in the so-called ?zombie renaissance? only to be severely let down.

Sure there were lots of fast-running, impressive looking digital zombies.  But where were the meticulous Tom Savini effects, where was the early Romero-style social commentary?

Well the best zombie movie since Dawn of the Dead is coming, it?s Canadian, and it?s story-based.  You can count the fatalities on one hand, so when someone does bite it, it resonates. 

Based on a book by Tony Burgess, Pontypool uses that old William S. Burroughs concept that ?Word is Virus!?  I won?t spoil too many details of how the English language turns rural Ontarians into zombie-like entities, or how McHattie and company don?t fight their adversaries with bullets to the head, but rather with a new linguistic mind-set. 

Set entirely in a radio station, McDonald drew inspiration from one-set classics like Twelve Angry Men.  It was originally adapted by Burroughs and McDonald as a radio play, but McDonald liked it so much he realized he may have a relatively inexpensive, yet ass-kicking feature.  Two sequels are anticipated if this does well.

The best word is creepy.  I actually had shivers.  And I never get shivers.  This one should explode if only because it?s a classic horror yarn that doesn?t require a lot of bells and whistles, but under that simple façade lies a work of stunning complexity that U of T linguists will be showing in class for years.

*The next two Pontypool screenings are Tuesday at 4:30 and Friday at 5pm, both at the Varsity.

You?ll notice as TIFF rolls along I?m covering a number of French Canadian films.  Perhaps this has something to do with my last name:  Sauve.  There should actually be an accent on that E and pronounced ?Sau-vay?, not ?Suave?, or ?Suave-ay? as so many telemarketers and incredulous name readers have inquired hatefully over the years. 

I am of French stock but my only real connection to the culture were occasional visits to Memere and Pepere in the predominantly French-speaking Haleybury, Ontario.  Still I enjoy identifying as a French Canadian in the same way Jack Kerouac identified as French Canadian in his perfect stories of sad Lowell Massachussets.  Maybe that?s why I dig French movies so much, and French Canadian ones in particular. 

La Memoire Des Anges was a perfect way to go back in time and glimpse a past that is my past and also not my past.  Director Luc Bourdon's tribute to NFB films set in Montreal primarily between 1947 and 1967 compiles footage from early, lesser-known works by Gilles Carle, Claude Jutra, Michel Brault, Arthur Lipsett, Gilles Groulx and Denys Arcand.

I can only imagine the significance of Bourdon's collection of catholic iconography and brown slush; blizzards and nativity scenes; girls weeping for Paul Anka, to anyone who lived in Montreal during this period.

But for me, there?s something about the French face that is undeniably cinematic, one need only google images of Catherine Deneuve, Brigitte Bardot or Jean-Paul Belmondo if proof is required. 

But it?s the face of the old French Canadian man I?ll always love:  The face of Pepere?s dozen or more male siblings, the face of old Léo-Alcide Kerouac.  There is no shortage of those in this sometimes poignant, sometimes prescient, often humorous collection of images.  Bourdon also wisely allows his historic gaze to linger on Montreal?s chic, eye-pleasing women.

A beautiful film and a loving tribute to the fathers of French Canadian cinema.

----Some of the aforementioned French faces----

The slickest dude I?ve seen at the festival this year is an actor so little you can?t even call him a young man, that would be reserved for say ? Michael Sera.   Antoine L'Écuyer may or may not have even tackled long division in school yet, but he melted the hearts of a packed Elgin Winter Garden during the premiere of C?est Pas Moi, Je Le Jure (I Didn?t Do It, I Swear).

The first question for director Philippe Falardeau, winner of the Citytv Award for Best Canadian First Feature in 2000, was ?Where did you find this amazing young man??

It was no miracle.  ?Casting,? said the clever director, ?We saw over 100 boys and I knew right away just by the way he was standing, I mean just look at him stand.?

Little L'Écuyer stands on stage like he?s Barrack Obama after hitting those three pointers in Iraq.  He owns the joint.  The kid probably owns most joints he walks into.  He was remarkably gracious, beeming with pride, not exactly nervous even though he couldn?t understand the English questions of his adoring audience.

After his painfully lovable, virtuoso performance (this isn?t hyperbole) L'Écuyer probably could have destroyed the mic stand Johnny Rotten-style and the crowd would have erupted with transcendent joy.

The film is about a 10-year-old boy with metaphysical questions and a tendency towards ?suicide accidents? and extreme acts of callous vandalism. 

?I?m taking French lessons and in French he would be called an enfant terrible?I think,? quipped Steve Gravestock, Associate Director of the Canadian Film Programme.

Even the most horrific of little Leon?s misadventures (destroying a piano with a screwdriver, urinating on a mink coat) drew adoring gasps of pure love from every mother in the audience.  From the sounds the ladies around me were making it seemed their own son was on screen.  I?m sure any one of them would have taken the petit garçon diable home and raised him without a second thought if presented the opportunity.

C?est Pas Moi, Je Le Jure is also one of the sweetest ten-year-old love stories you?ll ever see, and a brilliant examination of family dynamics filled with whimsy and all the right nostalgiac compliments for it?s 1968 suburban Quebec setting.

While a very different film, what kept coming to mind for me was Juno.  If you thought Ellen Page?s gutsy little performance was almost too sweet to bare, you ain?t seen nothing yet. 

 ----L'Écuyer and Director Philippe Falardeau ----

----L'Écuyer's onscren parents----

Stop-motion animation is an exciting and challenging medium, but I bet mainstream audiences associate it most closely with either Gumby: The Movie or that Rudolph flick.

Maybe that?s about to change.  Because Edison and Leo, the first stop-motion feature in Canadian history, should satisfy even the snootiest of animation buffs with it?s jaw-dropping photography, but it?s also a macabre comic masterpiece filled with precise touches of dark humour that will delight just about anyone.

It?s the story of lecherous inventor George T. Edison, a Napoleon-inspired megalomaniac whose drive to succeed kills his wife and turns his son into a walking electrical charge with weird robot buddies.

Like an ideal Simpsons episode the animated facial expressions are nuanced to perfection.  Unlike a bad Family Guy episode Edison and Leo avoids hamming it up with excessive, easy irony.  The comedy here is subtly clever and well earned.

The narrative motors along with plenty of amusing points (the deliciously unattractive jealous son Faraday ? the ugliest sibling rival in recent memory) augmented by bursts of brutal comic violence and unexpected touches of real beauty. (The gold statue Edison erects of his dead wife).

You?re a savvy TIFF08 reader so I won?t bore you with the impressive and often groundbreaking history of Canadian animation, but suffice it to say The Log Driver?s Waltz isn?t found on as many freshman girls? DVD shelves as say ? The Nightmare Before Christmas.  I think that?s too bad because The Log Driver?s Waltz is obviously very awesome.

Perhaps this too is about to change.  Because while Tim Burton?s dark efforts are certainly charming, they may have worn out their kitschy welcome a few years back.  This film - ten years in the making - will satisfy Burton fans, but it also throbs with a more intense brand of Guy Maddin-like weirdness.  (Long-time Maddin collaborator George Toles penned the screenplay).

Edison and Leo?s next screening is this Saturday at 1pm at the AMC theatre.

Above:  The gorgeous Carly Pope, voice of Zella. (I thought she deserved top pictorial billing.)

Below:  Director Neil Burns.  (A handsome gentleman in his own right.)

For me it began with Young People Fucking  and ended with a Lou Reed concert film that my friends didn?t realize was a concert film, you?d think the title Lou Reed?s Berlin would have clued them in. It was the last possible screening I could attend.  It was a cold night, fall was in the air and the festival was over.

Let me tell you a little about myself to put my festival experience in perspective.  I spent the first 19 years of my life in Sault Ste. Marie, a nice-looking, isolated northern Ontario city of about 70,000 people.  I always loved movies.  Sadly, there weren?t a lot of options after I?d made my way through the mainstream classics.  The cult section at the large chain video store was my best bet, and the movies it considered ?cult? included A Clockwork Orange, Twelve Monkeys, etc.  Good films, but not exactly Queen Video you know?

So my immersion in festival culture, rubbing shoulders with stars and directors was a beautiful experience for me. It was equally great dealing with first-time writers and producers, who seemed as star-struck as I was.  Meeting everyone at TIFF was a pleasure, especially the programmers who have a tremendous passion for movies and the friendly volunteers who spend eight-hour days in crowded theatre lobbies because of that same passion.  

I was stunned by the sheer volume and quality of the Canadian Film Programmes, and the cornucopia of styles offered.  Everything from My Winnipeg, the weirdest doc you?ll ever see, to straight-forward, but potent morality plays like Amal; and the many stories that needed to be told like A Promise to the Dead, Shake Hands With the Devil, and the head-banging, but heart-wrenching doc Heavy Metal in Baghdad.  Like many others, I was impressed with the commercial appeal of several Canadian features, like the aforementioned Young People, Allan Boyle?s stylish drug-comedy Weirdsville and They Wait, a horror flick that packs a significant punch.  Major new talents emerged, Martin Gero, Richie Mehta and Stéphane Lafleur made it abundantly clear the future of Canadian cinema is brighter than ever.

There was some rushing around, but I had a pretty sweet setup.  I would usually catch two or three movies a day.  The programmers were usually rushing off to the next theatre for an introduction or Q and A, while I sat comfortably in the second row, dipping delicious nachos in processed cheese while scribbling the odd note. 

I always had good luck snagging tickets from programmers, and I should thank Jesse Wente, Marguerite Pigott and Steve Gravestock in particular, who all went out of their way to get tickets for me minutes before screenings despite being among the busiest people in the festival.  I got in trouble from a theatre manager when I stalked Marguerite into the backstage bowels of the Ryerson Theatre to secure my Amal ticket.  But she came to my defense despite my apparent wrongdoing, saying ?He?s our blogger,? so that was nice of her.

The one time I tried to hustle up my own ticket, I was met with extreme skepticism from a box-office staffer only doing his job.  The title ?Volunteer Blog Assistant? just doesn?t carry the weight a Volunteer Blog Assistant might like it to.  He got on the phone with his boss, ?Um, there?s some guy here, and he says he writes a blog or something, and he wants a free ticket?? Thank goodness I found Steve Gravestock at the last minute, or I would have missed a glorious new print of Les Bons Débarras.

My camera broke on day four.  So it was with some trepidation that I attended Shake Hands With the Devil.  I was sure Romeo Dallaire would be there, and I wouldn?t get a picture.  Can a Volunteer Blog Assistant get fired?  At least Dallaire gave a powerful speech I was able to quote.  I asked a woman from Austin, Texas to email me the photo she took.  She agreed, but it hasn?t come yet.  I thought, ?when she gets home,? meant the hotel, apparently it meant Texas!

One fleeting moment of coolness was walking into the ROM amidst Eddie Moretti and his VICE entourage.  I happened to be standing around when they were let in, so I followed.  Then I saw an old friend I?d acted with as a kid.  She thought I was part of the VICE crew and excitedly asked if I was there because I was in the film industry.  I should have told her I was!

I made my first visit to the Royal York Ballroom for the Awards Reception.  I filled several plates with hangover reducing sausage and bacon, lined up behind Rupinder Nagra for freshly made Indian cuisine, and even had a run in with Oscar winner Eugenio Caballero over the last piece of prosciutto.  The acclaimed production designer on Pan?s Labyrinth was kind enough to split it in two.  Between bites I managed to interview Guy Maddin, Colm Feore and festival co-director Noah Cowan to drop a few names.

Three Canadian directors who?ve enjoyed long and successful partnerships with TIFF were honoured with awards today.  David Cronenberg?s Eastern Promises received the People?s Choice Award, Stéphane Lafleur?s sophisticated Continental: un film sans fusil won Best Canadian First Feature Film, and the enigmatic Guy Maddin's absurd documentary My Winnipeg took home Best Canadian Feature Film.

?To see three filmmakers win prizes today who we?ve had a long-time relationship with is very heartening for us, and validates our faith in what Canadian cinema can do. We take our role very seriously when it comes to nurturing talent in this country.  It?s not just a slogan,? said Noah Cowan, festival co-director. 

?Through our various programs with emerging directors - as they develop, helping them travel around the world and find new experiences ? we support their work both in a business and artistic context.  This is a big part of why we exist. ?

Maddin, who narrated My Winnipeg live during one TIFF screening, accepted a commission from the Documentary Channel to make a film about his hometown because he was ?flat broke? and needed a project.  ?I had very humble expectations for this film.  I was hoping to make something that was a documentary without appearing to be too big of a wank.  I had some historical events I?d known about for a long time in Winnipeg I wanted to get out there, some favourite things.  So I walked the dog a lot and daydreamed about how these things might interconnect. 

?TIFF has nurtured me really well.  I know everyone?s home phone numbers, but it doesn?t feel like a good old boys club, I never take them for granted.  I want to please them.  I want to make sure they like it.  I count on being here in the fall.  Fall used to mean clean air and pretty girls on campus, now it means this festival,? Maddin said leaving the Fairmont Royal York?s ballroom. 

Stéphane Lafleur has a similar story:  ?I came to TIFF for the first time in 1999 with my first short film, it was a student project.  I came back with two other shorts after that.  They?re really supportive, they always check in with what I have coming up.  Once you put your feet in the festival they keep asking what you?re doing.  I was very happy to come back with this first feature this year.?

His film is being released in Quebec in November, but Lafleur hopes the award will create the type of buzz necessary to garner a wide release. ?I hope it will be good for the film of course.  Give it a little bit of attention. It?s kind of an independent film. Everything that can bring attention to it is good.?

Cronenberg wasn?t available for an interview.  He was too busy promoting the successful opening of Eastern Promises in New York.  Perhaps we?ll write something similar about a young visionary like Lafleur a few years from now.

What better way to cap off a festival filled with Canadian brilliance than a Michel Brault double bill?  Pour la suite du monde paired with the seminal Les Raquetteurs for starters, followed by a glorious new print of Les Bons Débarras.

Pour la suite du monde, as André Loiselle writes - ?weaves an intricate web of relationships between reality and fiction, past and present, tradition and modernity, and word and image. Brault and (co-director Pierre) Perrault?s approach seeks to actualize that which no longer exists: the whale hunt is revived not in the hope of modernizing an ancient practice, but rather of making present what is irrevocably past.? 

Hailed as an important fixture in the cinéma-vérité movement, it was the first Canadian film to compete at Cannes.  It?s a well-deserved distinction.  Brault shares the belief of John Ford that the most interesting thing you can put on film is the human face.  The enthusiasms and eccentricities of town elders joyously reviving the whale hunts of their younger years evokes a stronger emotional response than any slickly produced ?feel good? movie could hope to accomplish.

Speaking of slick looking productions, last night was the first screening of a brand new print of Les Bons Débarras, Francis Mankiewicz?s layered tale of a daughter?s all-encompassing love for her mother.  Shot with stunning intimacy by Brault, this was named as the best Quebec film ever made by La Presse.

It was a family affair for the world premiere of Richie Mehta?s Amal Thursday night.  Hundreds of extended family, film-school pals and other well-wishers were there to see the highly anticipated tale of a kind-hearted auto-rickshaw driver. Of course there were an equal number of near-hysterical fans screaming their adoration at stars like Rupinder Nagra on the red carpet. 

Programmer Marguerite Pigott expressed the collective disbelief of festival programmers at what Mehta accomplished in his first feature. ?When we screened Amal, we were tremendously struck by the ambition of the production.  Here was a first time filmmaker and two first time producers who decided:  I know we?ll go to India to shoot a substantial feature film with significant Indian stars.   It shows remarkable ambition, and for that tremendous kudos are deserved.?

The Sheraton College graduate and his producers worked tirelessly to get Amal, based on a short story by Shaun Mehta, off the ground.  They pitched to anyone who?d listen, including Bill Clinton!  A keen-eyed audience member asked Mehta why Clinton was thanked in the credits.  ?We were at a wedding in India that Bill Clinton was at.  We made a bet who would be the first person to pitch Amal to him.  Everyone in the party was trying to get to him.  I got to him and gave him a postcard, because he loves movies, but they didn?t believe me.  Later on ? he?s like a hurricane, people surround him, swirling around ? the swirl comes back towards me, and they still don?t believe I talked to him.  And Bill?s shaking everyone?s hand, people are pitching him on oil deals, Aids in Africa, and he gets to me and he says ?I said I?d watch your movie ? I will!?  I said ?Bill, if you want to watch the movie, I have to get it to you.  You need my email address.  And the producers said ?I can?t believe you got Bill Clinton to email you.?

More than anything, the producers wanted to thank Telefilm for taking a chance on such an ambitious shoot with a first time director.  ?The toughest thing was trying to convince Telefilm to support a million dollar film, where you?re going to take 30 people and plant them in a village, we?re going to shoot a film in 29 days in 44 locations.  I think it?s a milestone they even let us in the door,? said producer Steven Bray.

Amal looks like it could have cost $20 million from the number of locations and the rich visual tapestry of India that is captured so magically.  That?s not to say they didn?t face hardships.  One night Mehta was walking back to the apartment complex the production had rented when he was chased by wild dogs!  ?All the dogs were really quiet and started looking at me.  And they were vicious.  So I jumped on top of a van, and they surrounded me, they called their buddies.  So I text-messaged the producers:  ?Guys, can?t get home, surrounded by wild dogs, please help.?

?Try talking to your insurance people on the phone, and trying to assure them everything is fine when wild dogs are attacking your director,? said producer David Miller.

Amal will have its next and final screening on September 15th at 9:15am

Denys Arcand and Michel Brault, Quebec?s two most influential filmmakers discussed their shared history with the National Film Board, differences between documentary and fictional films, and personal anecdotes before an enthusiastic crowd at the ROM on Thursday.

Several French Canadian filmmakers were in attendance, and at least one was truly inspired by the discussion.

?I?m a French Canadian who came here to study at York University thinking I needed to speak English to make films, but I realized most of my favourite films are actually from Quebec, so I wanted to hear them talk,? said Gabrielle Nadeau. ?They were very inspiring, Michel Brault amazed me.  He?s done so much.  He is Canadian film really.  All the films I studied in film school, he did half of them, and Denys Arcand did most of the rest.?

?Because of this talk I know what I want to do now for my next film.  I know I need to do more research, it was really inspiring how Denys said he approaches a subject when making a documentary: you just start shooting.  In fiction you need to do a lot of research.  So that?s what I need to do.?

André Loiselle, author of Cinema as History: Michel Brault and Modern Quebec moderated the discussion.   Loiselle, a self-confessed academic, steered the discussion towards the influence of both filmmakers? early days as documentarians on the highly-revered fictional films both men created later in their lives including Les Ordres, Les Bon Debarras and Gina.

?With documentaries you become very aware of reality, immersed in it,? said Arcand, ?reality is multi-faceted, it depends on who you are and what you want to do.?  He then described an unforgettable moment in his life.  He was sitting in a motel with Brault watching a hockey game when the ?gorgeous wife? of the owner could be seen changing in the next room. ?She?s sitting there in her underwear and I?m thinking: this is the beginning of my film.?  It?s a moment he could never have captured naturally, ?sometimes you need fiction because things just won?t happen in the documentary.?

Asked what the difference is between working with a documentary subject and an actor, Brault said ?With an actor it?s complicity, but with a documentary there must be very little interaction, you must let them unfold themselves.?

?A fundamental element that applies to both is trust,? added Arcand.  ?In my work there?s not a whole lot of differnece between making a documentary and a feature film.  I will start by reading everything I can about my subject. Then I will talk to experts, psychologists at universities, whatever.  I gather a huge theoretical apparatus about what I will be doing.  If it is a documentary I go out and start shooting.  If it?s fiction I?ll go and talk to people, and write it down and try to recreate that on film.  With a documentary you?re shooting before you?re writing.  I?m trying to portray reality, I can do this with actors and scripts and everything, or I can do it raw.?

Denys Arcand.

If variety is the spice of life, then Short Cuts Canada?s Programme 3 is a perfectly seasoned chicken cutlet.  That?s not a particularly clever lead, and it doesn?t make much sense if you think about it for any period of time.  Short films after all, are not delicious chunks of meat.  (Personal note: Stop watching Food Network till 5 a.m.)

But what else can a hungry man say about a programme that delivers everything: Canadian master Larry (seen on your right) Kent?s Hastings Street, shot in 1962; an ultra-modern time travel paradox in Hirsute; an adaptation of a 1967 Terry Southern screenplay (Plums and Prunes); a ridiculously funny mockumentary on Segway-riding, role-playing dweebs (Knights of Atomikaron); not to mention cutting-edge animation (Blood Will Tell) on the same bill as an eloquent eulogy for a lost way of life in Farmer?s Requiem.

The filmmaking process was markedly different for the filmmakers involved also. Troy Nixey (Latchkey?s Lament) spent five years lovingly constructing his ambitious short.  The charming pals behind Knights of Atomikaron however, claim to have grinded their hilarious and highly commercial piece out in one day.  Trevor Cawood, who made the enigmatic and stylish Terminus, almost takes computer generated graphics for granted they come so easily to him, where Larry Kent battled endlessly with the difficult process of syncing sound with images shot nearly 50 years ago in the days when you couldn?t edit on a laptop.

In short, there?s a lot to see here.  And your last chance is tomorrow at noon. So don?t sleep in!  For more detailed descriptions of the films mentioned and others in Programme 3, check the link above.  Me, I?m going to eat a pickled egg.

Trevor Cawood, director of Terminus, and Troy Nixey, director of Latchkey's Lament.

An army of dwarves wielding medieval weapons, junkies, and inept Satanists, these elements make Allan Moyle?s Weirdsville what it is.The dark comedy about two drug-fiends mired in all sorts of mischief is nothing if not eclectic.  Middle-aged fans are likely to laugh as hard as the Harold and Kumar demographic. Moyle?s accomplished visual style and Willem Wennekers? clever script elevate it above the terrain of your typical broad comedy.

?I could just stand up here and talk about how fun it is to be a Canadian drug addict?, joked Moyle after the film. A young lady in front of me was having a difficult time breathing after a brief encounter with megahunk Scott Speedman before the screening.  I wonder what was going through her head as he sat a few inches in front of her during the Q and A period, head hung low, shyly (no doubt ?adorably? in her opinion) passing on questions.

Programmer Marguerite Pigott wanted to know how Speedman and co-star Wes Bentley developed such great chemistry. Bentley said he showed up at Speedman?s door wearing a bathrobe, and figured if he didn?t get the joke, then it wasn?t meant to be. When asked if they?d do another one, Bentley joked only if they could pay the rising star Speedman enough.

Wennekers discussed how the film was initially intended as a horror or action film. He credits Moyle with gentling nudging him to include more comedy to humanize the outlandish plot.There are dozens of hilarious sight-gags, and as Marguerite pointed out, the chemistry between Speedman and Bentley is so organic, it alone makes the film worth watching. The supporting cast doesn?t drop the ball however, and small but memorable roles from the likes of Matt Frewer and Joe Dinicol really keep things moving.

After the screening of Continental: un film sans fusil, director Stéphane Lafleur took a shot at films using guns to attract audiences for all the wrong reasons.  He won?t have an issue with Contre toute espérance, because while a gun plays a major role, it is used with a definite dramatic purpose.

Contre toute espérance is a daring portrait of what globalization and corporate greed do to families.  Réjeanne Poulin has it bad enough caring for her husband, a stroke victim.  So when her call centre employer decides to restructure the company, it?s a blow the once-happy couple never recovers from.

What struck me most, was how accurately director Bernard Émond portrays corporate head-honchos.  They see things only in terms of market forces, not humanity.  At one point a telecom president says, ?If I were a woman I would be ashamed to be protected from the forces of the market.?  When Réjeanne tells the multi-millionaire she lost her house because of his cost-cutting measures, he says nothing, appears angry with her, and quickly walks away. 

Q and A with Director Bernard Émond:

Audience Member:  That was brilliantly done, and the question is, what experience or memory inspired this?

Bernard Émond:  It?s partly because of reality.  About ten years ago a thousand operators were laid off in Quebec.  This film is the second part of a trilogy about faith, hope and charity, the three main Christian virtues.  I say that even though I am not a believer myself.  It?s still very part of my catholic heritage.  It?s a meditation on current events and deeper values.  This one was about hope, even though it doesn?t seem that way.  I wanted to make a film about what makes hope more and more difficult in the world of contemporary capitalism we live in. 

AM:  The title means against all hope, why did you choose it?

BE:    Contre toute espérance is a french expression that means when something happens in a really unexpected way.  You know I had cancer and survived, contre toute espérance.

AM:  As an actress I?m fascinated by how the characters developed their inner characters, it?s fascinating to watch?  And do you consider yourself a pessimist or an optimist?

BE:  I will give the answer Rosselini once gave to that question.  I am not a pesssimist, to see evil where it is, is to be an optimist and fight evil.

AM:  I thought the film was brilliant, and you seem to take us to the maximum emotional moment with these daring shots?

BE:  I wanted the film to be very slow and deliberate.  There?s nothing I like more than looking at the human face.  The human face is like a very long and subtle text, and we have to take time to read it.  I work with my actors and my DP that way.  I think that there is a complexity in the human face that transcends whatever complexity we might try to achieve in writing. 

At the risk of sounding misogynistic, I think it?s fair comment to say that Leelee Sobieski is pretty darn hot. So standing five feet from the charming young actress in her sexy dominatrix-inspired leather ensemble last night was yet another career moment for me at TIFF. Judge me if you will, but not everyone is so lucky. Fortunately, you can check her out in Walk All Over Me, in which she sports no shortage of corsets and costumes and delivers a quirky, charming performance as an unlikely dominatrix. On the run from gangsters, Sobieski takes up with the equally attractive Tricia Helfer, who?s got a profitable gig making men act like dogs and kiss her boots.Sexy humour doesn?t play so well in the blog format, so I suggest you check this out on its intended medium: the big screen. In the meantime, here are some shots from last night?s premiere.

Stéphane Lafleur?s first feature film Continental:  un film sans fusil mesmorized a Scotiabank audience Monday night.  The simple, loosely intertwined stories of several Quebecers are told with a nuance and soft and steady visual style that initially made it difficult for programmer Marguerite Pigott to believe it was Lafleur?s first feature.

?It was almost incromprehensible to us that this was a first feature film.  The aesthetic was so mature, the direction of the actors so distinctive and fresh, the writing has such discipline and complexity.  It?s quite exceptional.  Many films have great style and some films have great humanity, few films have both, this is one of those films.?

Lafleur got things started with a joke:  ?It?s been a really long ride since my first short in the festival in 1999.  I know there?s Bourne playing in the next room, so I hope that all the guns won?t come here.?

That?s a reference to the sans fusil portion of the title, which means, ?without guns?.  It?s an interesting choice, considering the film deals with issues like loneliness, aging and social isolation.  ?Since we?re living in a still-peaceful country it was a way to position these really intimate stories in a larger context.  Also it was sort of a little joke about all these films using guns.  There are some films using guns in a good way, but some just do it to add a dramatic element.?

Here are some moments from the Q and A:

Audience Member:  I really loved your use of sound in the film, could you discuss it?

SL:  I really wanted sound to be a big part of the film.  There?s not a lot of music in the film.  I wanted to use the environment sounds we hear everyday, like a buzzing fridge, to create a kind of soundtrack with these things.  It was important, there was a lot of stuff about sound in the script.  I wanted to offer the audience some freedom in the film, to participate in the film.  So using a steady camera leaves it up to the audience to decide what is outside the frame. 

Marguerite Pigott:  I wanted to ask about the evolution of the scipt.  There are a number of separate stories, and all of them are building and arching at the same time.  How did you develop the scipt?

SL:  I kind of write in a really messy way.  It has no structure and no technique.  I just collect ideas, images I would like to film.  I had the first scene for several years ? a guy in a bus goes into the forrest ? then the other characters came, his wife of course.  We thought it was a good idea for our first feature to do four stories because it would be like four little shorts.  I thought it would be easy but I was totally wrong it was awful.  It was difficult writing the scipt and difficult editing too.

Marguerite:  I?m curious about what?s on the cutting room floor? 

SL:  There were more characters in the film.  Secondary roles.  I found that we didn?t need them exactly, we had to focus on these four people.

Marguerite:  I wanted to ask about the shooting of the film, because the camera is so still, so elegant and so formal.  Even though the lines are so formal, there?s such messy humanity inside them.  So I wanted to ask you about your relationship with your DOP?

SL:  It was her first film too.  We had a really creative energy.  We had a lot of enthusiasm shooting this project.  When I wrote the script I knew what I wanted for the frame.  So we found locations to serve these ideas.  The work she did with the light was incredible, she?s like a magician.  I knew what I wanted but I have no talent for photography so she did everything. 

Audience Member: I want to know what happened in the forrest.

SL:  It?s a good question, but I won?t answer it.  I feel that in life we?re always looking for answers, there?s no good answer for what?s going on in the forrest.  Your answer is probably better than mine.  I think it?s important to trust ourselves when we look at a piece of art. 

Audience Member: Why did you choose the title? 

As if Guy Maddin?s My Winnipeg didn?t have enough absurdly hilarious moments to keep an audience in stitches, he had to up the ante with a reference to the city?s proclivity for bison stampedes!

The bizarre documentary blends factual accounts like the loss of the Winnipeg Jets, the demolition of Eatons Department Store and personal memories with outlandish fantasy recreations and Maddin?s trademark dark and mysterious visual style.

Here are highlights from a Q and A at the Manulife Centre on Sunday:

Audience Member: I noticed Anne Savage?s name in the credits.  Is that the same Anne Savage from Detour?

Guy Maddin:  Yes Anne Savage was in this unbelievable noir, poverty row classic Detour.  She hadn?t been on the big screen?since 1955.  (applause)  She was excited about coming here but she was not well.

AM:  I think we both lived in Winnipeg, but I lived in a different city I believe, I?m curious if there?s anything about Winnipeg you like?

GM:  You?re the one that left. (laughter, applause)  I love it all.  I?m going back there tomorrow, it?s my home.  I don?t know, making the film I sometimes felt like a petulant, sulking child running away from home.  Or going up to his room and imagining his own funeral and imagining how sad everyone would be at it.  And then I got hungry and had to come back and eat at the family table.  I think by being so incredibly specific there?s universality.  I realized while daydreaming about the city there are thousands of different Winnipegs.  It?s not just your hometown, but your family, a place, a time, all those things are stacked together.  You end up spending a lot of time thinking about yourself when making a movie like this and I?m really glad I don?t have to do it anymore.

AM: I?m wondering about the writing and how it mutated and evolved in the making of the film?

GM:  The movie was an assignment from the documentary channel.  I was broke and needed to make a movie. So I asked to be assigned something and I was assigned Winnipeg.  I had some historical events I?d known about for a long time in Winnipeg I wanted to get out there, some favourite things.  So I walked the dog a lot and daydreamed about how these things might interconnect.  Then we shot a bunch of stuff and in the editing process ? normally we edit to music ? this time, I went into a recording studio and recorded some of my rants and ramblings about Winnipeg, then the editor treated those narrations as temp music and cut to them. 

AM:  Were you influenced or inspired by documentaries from an earlier era.  This reminded me of Berlin: Symphony of a Great City.

GM:  I do love Symphony of a Great City, gosh thanks for including me in the same sentence with these unbelievable masterpieces.  I was emboldened by them.  I was really just sort of groping my way along, and I really needed a lot of feedback from my producer and Michael Burns who commissioned the film.  So when I discussed outlines I really had to justify my approach. And Michael was good at massaging me to a position that I was comfortable with, but he as director of the Documentary Channel, not the fiction channel had to be comfortable too.

AM:  Is there a Happy Land Sign in Winnipeg?

GM:  Yes, it was trampled in a Bison stampede.  I know Torontonians are very jealous we?ve had a bison stampede in the last century and you haven?t but I?m sure if you look at your past far enough you?ll find one.

AM:  I?m from the west as well, and I notice the demolition of places of memory.  You really embrace nostalgia in the film, and I?m wondering why people in the west hate nostalgia so much?

GM:  Whenever I got near some of the people responsible I smelled sulfur, so I have no idea.