18 1/2 Philadelphia Film Festival

Thursday's the 15th, and Monday's the 19th, but yeah. I'm real curious about the Red Riding Trilogy. Dunno if I can make the Bronson and Antichrist screenings, but they'll both get an arthouse realease in Philly later, I think.

Huh, had no idea about this until now. Definitely gonna try to make it out for a couple screenings at least, even though it's true pretty much all of the ones I want to see will almost definitely be getting normal theatrical releases here later. It's fun seeing movies early and seeing a bunch at once. Thanks for the heads up.

The splintering of the film society(ies) is weird but if it means there's more film festival fun sprinkled throughout the year I'm fine with it.

I might try to see a couple of movies. At least Antichrist and Bronson. If I can even muster up the guts to see Antichrist.

Huh.

In other news, dear festival programmers: I understand that you're very proud you've pulled off a fest; indeed, it must be a daunting task and you are to be commended for it. But please don't introduce the films by telling us your mini-review of the film, or by telling us to "watch for the scene where..." (I'm in the theater already, shit head. I'm planning on watching every scene). And no need to intro The Men Who Stare At Goats with "Didja ever watch Three Kings and think it'd be better if it was funnier and was mixed with Star Wars?" We don't need it. We sought out and found your badly publicized festival already; we don't need the hand holding.

So I actually ended up getting a couple six movie passes and made it to 12 screenings. I've got nothing but free time at the moment and couldn't resist. I love watching movies all day.

In a sense the Red Riding trilogy might have actually been the highlight of the festival for me. I guess Antichrist and A Town Called Panic were technically the best things I saw but I was pretty much already expecting to love those, whereas the trilogy was a total pleasant surprise. Very good crime drama that reminded me of other great entries in the genre like LA Confidential, The Wire, Chinatown, Zodiac etc. It's not quite on the level of those and not without some flaws but still really good stuff, highly recommended. Seeing all three parts back to back over the course of one day was awesome.

As for the rest, I actually didn't see anything outright bad, though I'm surprised I didn't like Bronson more. It was good but somehow didn't quite click with me.

Dan, that was TOO close!

I liked the trilogy well enough, but I think I'd have enjoyed them more if I watched one a day. I walked into that theater and saw the big DVD logo on the screen and wanted to murder someone. I later read online that 1974 was shot on 16mm, 1980 was shot on 35mm, and 1983 was shot with the Red.

And I hated that audience (surprise, surprise).

The first of the trilogy was the weakest for me. I still have no idea why they gave the reporter a gun before throwing him out of the truck. Might be due to the shit audio from the GODDAMN DEE VEE DEE, though. I did enjoy the way the three were connected, but I saw the bit with the priest coming a mile away. And it strained credibility that the antagonist would be into both little boys AND little girls.

Ugh, yeah, it still pisses me off whenever they show DVDs at these things. It's a FILM FESTIVAL fer chrissakes. I'm sure it's largely out of their hands but it's still disappointing. Watching a dvd blown up that big somehow makes everything seem digital. I assumed all three parts were shot on video until I read online afterward that only the third was.

The gun thing was certainly a plothole, though you're right that the shitty audio (combined with the thick northern accents) could have obscured a clarifying bit of dialogue. Kinda doubt it though. Maybe they were expecting him to kill himself? *shrug* But somehow, even though the whole climax hinges on that little detail, it didn't bother me TOO much. I enjoyed him going all Travis Bickle as well as Dawson's really nonchalant admission of guilt.

The first was probably my least favorite as well though. I liked the style and it served as a good introduction to the seedy world of the trilogy but ultimately felt slight compared to the other two. I think my favorite was 1980, thanks largely to Considine (or as he was billed on the festival website, Constantine)

The role of the priest was not a surprise, no, but the exact nature of the antagonist is a little more muddled than that. It was more of a group thing that he participated in/helped facilitate (though I guess that in itself is more far fetched than it all being the work of an individual), so it wasn't necessarily that he was into both boys and girls. Dawson had the swan thing, so he was responsible for that, Piggot's dad could have done one of the others, etc. And it's not clear who else or how many other people were involved.

I read some criticism online about the ending betraying the dark, pessimistic nature of the trilogy but I feel that in the scope of the big picture painted by the three films together it's a pretty minor victory for good and chances are that corruption and evil will continue to win out overall. But I don't know, maybe that's just me trying to rationalize liking it. My main problem with 1983 was the subplot with the medium. Now that seemed out of place. The narration and last bit with BJ were a little lame too.

Like I said before, the trilogy is not without its flaws but I think for the most part it's a really good entry in the genre.

Oh, and apparently Ridley Scott is interested in remaking it

Part 3 was hamstrung by the medium and by the "Am I supposed to have any inkling what they're talking about" bit with Mark Addy's dad.

Then list it in the program. The regular Philly fest used to list presentation format.

I liked 1980 the best as well; it started very strong and sucker punched you with the ending. And yes, there's a main page article about Ridley remaking the trilogy. (It was four books; not sure how they folded that in).

Dan, was that you reading a Fletcher Hanks comic at the Red Riding screening?

Nope, I was the bearded guy who was probably playing with his iphone. And was wearing either a red or blue hat I think.

The gun wasn't a plothole. It's essentially addressed in the third film, but obliquely. They sent the reporter to kill Dawson. It's sort of subtle, but it's in the first and third - basically once they see the dead reporter's files they realize that Dawson has been cutting away at everyone else involved or against him. He's been feeding the press their bad behavior, and to make matters worse, he's been fucking little girls in a way that's not so secretive anymore. They basically break the reporter down so that he's at his most fucked up and primal - it's like THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM.

That's why they later went into the club and shot everybody up, to make it look like an unrelated thing. The irony is if the reporter just kept driving he'd have lived a happy life - they didn't want to pin anything on him because it would create a trail.

I'm not sure how much you're supposed to be in the dark. He's definitely set up in a creepy way in 1980.

But yeah, I don't like the fact that he kidnapped Hazel. It doesn't make a lick of sense, honestly. Unless the subtext I'm missing here is that he's just doing it for someone else again. I've never been more interested in the mechanics of a child abuse ring than this.

In my defense I could barely hear the fucking thing. Benenson can back me up - Yorkshire accents+DVD audio in a movie theater+I am going deaf = some plot confusion. I was so excited when the big city cops came to investigate in 1980, just because their accents were less challenging.

In any event, thanks for clarifying!

All three that I saw today had subtitles, which was annoying to me, but I guess you needed them!

Definitely would have helped with the first one and parts of the third. (I'll take this over to the Red Riding thread going forward.)

I can definitely back you up, it was often hard to understand. The DVD audio on those speakers sounded very muddled and distorted at times. Actually I think some of that was just the speakers themselves, because I saw A Town Called Panic in the same theater and the sound was really distorted whenever it got loud.

I didn't really make the connection to the files either. Maybe that was just me being dumb or not paying close enough attention but if it was subtly referenced in the third film I'm thinking the poor presentation is at least somewhat to blame, because I was really engaged with the movies and don't recall that bit at all.

I was thinking about it again yesterday and realized they were manipulating Dunford into killing Dawson, but other than his unsavory vice I was still hazy on their motivation (though I guess it's bad enough that the kidnappings/murders are garnering so much attention), and figured they shot up the club just to cover up what had blown up in their faces. But if they became aware via Barry's files that Dawson was backstabbing them it fills in that gap nicely and it all makes sense.

As for the priest, I guess I assumed he's doing it for someone else again, but I don't remember anything in the movie that clearly supports that