Category: TIFF

Moi Et Mon Blanc (Burkina Faso, director S. Pierre Yaméogo): Mamadi is a doctoral student in Paris. He’s studying international law so that he can go back to Africa to change the political situation in his country. While working as a parking garage attendant, he finds a bag of drugs and money and decides to keep it. Along with his French buddy Franck (the blanc in the title, roughly translated as “white guy”), they travel back to Burkina Faso and decide to start a bar.

This was a light-hearted buddy movie, and it had its charms. Nevertheless, the plot and characterization were minimal, and there were some editing/continuity problems. The attempts to parallel people’s attitudes about race in both countries were a bit clumsy, as well, however well-intentioned. Still, I have to applaud a filmmaker from a country with so few resources for making such a good-natured film. The scenes in Burkina Faso, though less tight narratively, have an ease that lets you know the actor (and the filmmaker) is home. And home, despite the political problems and poverty, is where the heart is. Working with such limited resources, Yaméogo has done a pretty good job. I hope he gets to continue making films.

(6.5/10)

Stander (Canada/UK/South Africa, director Bronwen Hughes): Andre Stander was a police captain in South Africa. In 1976, during riot duty, he shoots and kills a young black man. Deeply disturbed by his place in the apartheid society, he begins robbing banks, while still working as a police officer. After more than two dozen robberies, he is apprehended and sentenced to 32 years in prison. After two years, he breaks out of prison along with two accomplices and soon the “Stander Gang” are at it again, robbing dozens more banks (as many as five in one day). This unbelievable and yet true story is told with gusto by director Bronwen Hughes. One of my friends was vaguely surprised that a female director could be so true to the way male friendships and camaraderie operate, but Hughes does a great job. Because the story takes place in the ’70s and ’80s, the art direction was crucial, too, and it’s pulled off magnificently, aided by a jazzy and slightly campy soundtrack. The film seemed like a joyous remix of Bonnie and Clyde, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Catch Me If You Can, and even Starsky and Hutch.

In my opinion, the only thing that would have made it better would have been a little more insight into what Stander really thought of the white society in South Africa, and what his real motives were, if any. Was anarchy all he believed in?

(8/10)

Touching The Void (UK, director Kevin Macdonald): Based on the book of the same name by mountaineer Joe Simpson, the film both recounts and recreates the harrowing true story of Simpson and climbing partner Simon Yates’ 1985 ascent of the sheer face of an Andean mountain. During the descent, Simpson falls and badly shatters his leg. After attempting to lower his friend to safety and losing him over an ice cliff, Yates makes the controversial decision to cut the rope that binds them together, letting Simpson fall more than 100 feet into a crevasse.

Amazingly, both men survive. And even more amazingly, Simpson staunchly defends his friend’s action upon their return home. Told in a docudrama style, the film captures both the majesty and terror of the mountains along with the real emotional and physical experiences of the climbers themselves. Utterly unique and deserves to gain a huge audience.

Joe Simpson continues to climb today, and received a standing ovation after the screening.

(10/10)

Mayor Of The Sunset Strip (USA, director George Hickenlooper): Rodney Bingenheimer is short and kind of funny-looking. He also knows just about everyone in the music business, from David Bowie to Cher to Coldplay. This film explores how Rodney’s love affair with the famous took him from groupie to disc jockey at Los Angeles’ famous KROQ. Along the way, he worked as Sonny and Cher’s gopher, acted as Monkee Davy Jones’ stand-in, and opened his own club (Rodney Bingenheimer’s English Disco).

This is the second film I’ve seen this weekend that explores our fascination with fame and the famous. But where I Love Your Work tried (and in my case, failed) to get us to sympathize with the movie star, this film had no trouble getting us on Rodney’s side. After his parents divorced when he was three, Rodney lived with his mother until she pretty much abandoned him as a teenager. His search for a surrogate family took him to Los Angeles in the mid ’60s, where his innocence and small stature made him irresistible to hippie girls.

The scenes which were hardest to watch were of Rodney spreading his beloved mother’s ashes from a boat in England, and of his unrequited love for his “friend” Camille.

The soundtrack is also a great collection of the classic and the downright wacky. I hope his friend Ronald Vaughan’s band “Isadore Ivy: Spaceman-at-Large” is included.

As an added bonus, Rodney was at the screening, and though not comfortable with all parts of the film, he must be applauded for his willingness to let the film show him as he is. The only sad thing is that he’s down to one three-hour shift a week at KROQ, and he’s clearly aware that he’s not as “hot” as he once was. It’s like his family is abandoning him all over again. Sadly, that’s the nature of fame. It’s just not possible to find unconditional love among those hungry for stardom.

(9.5/10)

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (Ireland, directors Kim Bartley and Donnacha O’Briain): Wow. This documentary was absolutely jaw-dropping. The directors travelled to Venezuela to make a profile of President Hugo Chavez, and in the course of their seven month stay, were witnesses to the bizarre 48-hour coup which took place in April 2002.

Chavez, an immensely charismatic leader, draws almost all of his support from among the poor, who make up about 80% of Venezuela’s population. Despite huge oil wealth, Venezuela has always been ruled by a small minority who have kept that wealth in the hands of the few. Chavez is obviously not a popular man among this crowd, nor in the eyes of the Bush administration, who clearly want Venezuela to remain a source of cheap oil, especially now. Chavez planned to shake up the state oil company in order to facilitate his plan to redistribute some of the wealth. This led to predictable protests from the wealthy class, who also happen to own most of the newspapers, television and radio stations in the country. This private media empire had been an unrelenting critic of the Chavez government, even in the face of genuine reforms (for instance, under Chavez, healthcare and education were made free, for the first time in Venezuela’s history!).

I don’t mean to ramble on, but it was incredible how this private media manipulated images in order to further the aims of the coup plotters. After a very tense confrontation between Chavez supporters and opposition supporters, snipers suddenly began firing on the pro-Chavez crowd, killing at least ten. In response, some of those in the crowd who had handguns (about 25% of Venezuelans, according to the film) began firing back in the direction of the sniper fire. The private media actually ran these images and declared that the Chavez supporters had fired on the opposition crowd, killing ten of them. This version of events was fed to the Western media, including CNN, who ran the manipulated footage uncritically. This crisis led directly to several high-ranking military officials calling for Chavez’ resignation, and then surrounding the palace with tanks to force it. All the while, the filmmakers were inside the palace with members of the Chavez government. Chavez refused to resign, but agreed to be taken into custody by the generals after they threatened to bomb the palace. The opposition then shut down the state TV station and broadcast that Chavez had voluntarily stepped down. In reality, he was kidnapped and held hostage on an island, unable to communicate with his ministers or family.

The “interim” government convened the next day, whereupon they dissolved the National Assembly, the Supreme Court, and dismissed the Attorney General and the Ombudsman, effectively abolishing all of Venezuela’s democratic institutions. As word filtered out to the people that Chavez had been imprisoned, and had not resigned, huge crowds began to surround the palace. Emboldened by a crowd numbering into the hundreds of thousands, the palace guards, who had remained loyal to Chavez even while continuing to do their job for the new government, hatched a plan to retake the palace. Within a few hours, they had succeeded, and although many of the coup leaders managed to escape, some were detained in the palace basement. The ministers of Chavez’ government, including the Vice President, all in hiding, were informed and all came back to claim their rightful places again. When it became clear that the rank and file of the military had not deserted Chavez, they went to release him from his island prison and he returned to Caracas in triumph.

The whole thing had taken about 48 hours, and if it hadn’t been for the massive demonstrations in support of Chavez, the coup would have succeeded. The film was an on-the-ground account and made no claims of objectivity, but the fact that so much of the story was altered or simply ignored in North America seems inexcusable.

So, although the filmmakers were simply in the right place at the right time, they also managed to cover a lot of details that were very illuminating. The fear and despair of the Chavez government ministers on the night of the palace siege, their relief and elation when they were reinstated, the protests of the ordinary citizens, and even the fears of the upper classes; all were detailed with great immediacy. A one of a kind film experience.

(9/10)