 |
 |
|
|
The Winners
The Gold Hugo
"Kontroll" (Hungary)
Directed by Nimród Antal
The Silver Hugo (Special Jury Prize)
"Turtles Can Fly" / "Lak poshtha ham parvaz mikonand" (Iraq/Iran)
Directed by Bahman Ghobadi
A Silver Hugo
Day and Night / Dag og nat (Denmark)
Directed by Simon Staho, for "its perfectly balanced ensemble acting by Mikael Persbrandt, Sam Kessel, Maria Bonnevie, Michael Nyqvist, Lena Endre, Hans Alfredson, Pernilla August, Fares Fares, Marie Goranzon, Tuva Novotny and Erland Josephson."
"Whisky" (Uruguay/Argentina/Germany)
for "the direction of Juan Pablo Rebella and Pablo Stoll, its confident pacing and ironic distance."
Source: www.chicagofilmfestival.com
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
Much has been made of the festival turning 40. Much like any such anniversary would register with us, whether it’s already happened or will at some future date, it is sure to be a mixed emotion; undoubtedly, it comes with reassessment, minor regret and ever escalating expectation.
Sure, as it sits amongst friends, occasionally glancing down at a cake crowded with candles, the festival offers forth an obligatory speech: it’s happy with where it’s at; it continues to grow; it’s proud of its humble, blue-collar ways, which typify the city that it represents. But, with all that said, after the candles are all blown out, the dishes are all washed, and the guests are all gone, the “40” begins to sink in.
Unwittingly, self-analysis creeps in and its thoughts turn to its peers; if for nothing else, than for perspective. It thinks of its friends, New York – slightly older, now 42 – and Toronto – a relative youngster, at 29. Perhaps they have accomplished a lot more during their lifetimes, or perhaps not. Perhaps they fulfill different needs, relative to those of the city that bears their name.
Sure, Toronto is currently the largest film festival in the world, and it’s probably second only to Cannes in prestige. But does CIFF aspire to be Toronto or New York? Those festivals draw larger crowds and have bigger budgets… but that wasn’t always the case.
At some point in time, they aspired to be bigger, but, more importantly… they aspired to be more important. Don’t get me wrong; I love the festival… and I’m only hard on it because I want it to be as successful as it can be. I wish it health and prosperity. I wish that it becomes even more ambitious. I wish that it attracts more World or North American premieres, as opposed to functioning as a year-in-review; featuring third, fourth, or tenth-run festival films.
Thus, if it becomes a place where talent is discovered, that will result in more and more submissions, which will enable it to become even more selective. And then, with all that power in place, I hope that it take risks, discovering new voices and new visions. Only then will the festival truly matter.
Anniversary wishes aside, the festival looked good at “40”; comfortable with itself, which, consecutively, made everyone comfortable with it. The most visible changes in this year’s festival – ones that might, at first, seem cinematically irrelevant – were the venues. Of course there’s the Landmark, but gone was our beloved but much maligned Music Box and in its place the River East AMC; a state-of-the-art multiplex which seldom screens your art-house fare. It looked, felt, and sounded good doing it.
For all cineastes now accustomed to bedrock conditions, it was like stepping into first class after a life of flying coach. Sure, I missed the subtle camaraderie that came with screenings at the Music Box – the place exudes cinema – but much like what was done to Soldier Field, it needs to be gutted and brought up to date. So, with all that in mind, the festival took a turn in the right direction.
[1] [2] [3] [4]
|
