Forgive me for the unrelated query, but was your 'Monsters VS Aliens' review not originally titled "Monsters: 0, Aliens: 0" or is my memory making an edit to suit the tone of the review?

Ebert: Monsters scored at the buzzer.

I hope to attend one of these wonderful film festivals at least once: film making has become such an money-mongering industry that it creates a void of artistic and intellectual apathy for the cinematic-medium, so to see anyone or anything show something non-mainstream – indie, documentaries, foreign – is inspiring and refreshing.

I suppose the nature of Hollywood-domination is inevitable given the American norm of anything, of conglomerating all into one corporate Buy-N-Large-like bubble that has "everything you could ever ask for for whatever you're looking at," eg. international buffets, Las Vegas, Disney Epcot, Walmart, Hollwood, etc. So, despite the American dream ideal that seems to grow more and more archaic, it's incredibly difficult for anything small, non-corporate and/or non-mainstream to really make a stand of notice. I'm just glad that festivals like these are put up and in some select cities (my college town of Berkeley, for example) have small and well-run, well-projected theaters available for smaller, less well-known films. Cheers!

I will definitely check out the movies in your list. The only one I've seen is "The Fall"...which moves me to comment, actually. The main character was a movie stuntman, not a soldier.

The thing I liked about The Fall was how we saw her interpretation of his story. When he talks about "the Indian" we know he means a Native American, but she imagines a man from India because that's what her experience identifies with. There are so many moments where things like that happen. It was a wonderful movie.

Ebert: I must have a brain cloud. I keep getting that wrong.

God willing, I'll be there for the first time next year (maybe you could warn me in advance because when I find out it's starting, tickets are sold out!) If only to get the chance to meet you. :)

Oh how I wish I could see THE FALL this year. Finding it (legitimately) in the Asia Pacific region is hopeless.

Ebert: Passes usually go on sale in February. Love to see you there.

I'm kinda new to your website/blog, so this struck me as a new idea (please forgive me if it isn't): has anyone ever thought about putting the various films (and maybe a few interviews, etc), from each years Ebertfest, on DVD, and selling them (on amazon.com, or wherever), with proceeds going to the various filmmakers?

Ebert: There would be a lot of legal and copyright issues, and we're a mostly volunteer effort.

Hi, Roger:

I notice you are showing the silent classic, "The Last Command," starring the great Emil Jannings and William Powell. I've seen that movie, and Jannings's fine performance as the disgraced Czarist general turned movie extra. It's a powerful piece of work, and an excellent addition to your festival.

Speaking of Emil Jannings, there's something you should be aware of, Roger. As I'm sure you know, Jannings won the very first Best Actor award in 1927 for his role in "The Way of All Flesh" -- a movie that is considered a lost classic.

No known copies of "The Way of All Flesh" exist -- *except* for one 17-minute clip that is owned by Northern Illinois University. The clip is part of a 1936 compilation film of silent movies called "Movie Milestones No. 2."

Although this is only a fragment, this film clip should be preserved. I've already notified AFI about it, but I don't know if anyone in the preservation department received my message about the existence of the NIU clip.

I know you have numerous contacts among film preservationists and historians, Roger. If you could alert some of your friends to the existence of NIU's clip of "The Way of All Flesh," they might be able to get the ball rolling towards making sure the clip is preserved -- at least until someone finds a full copy of this lost film.

Anyway, just thought you should know. Again, my choice for an "overlooked film" that deserves to be at Ebertfest would be Studio Ghibli's 1995 animated film, "Whisper of the Heart."

You guys are going to have such a great time! I am so jealous. For five years now, I keep promising myself that I will be there at the next Ebertfest! This time, I mean it.

By the way, was the Rod Lurie who wrote in to the Answerman a few weeks ago the same Rod Lurie of "Nothing but the Truth?"

I love "Let The Right One In." It was my favourite film of last year. Fellow commenters who'd be interested in my take on the film should feel free to click on my name. This is the second time I've pimped my shaky blog here on the comments, but it will be the last. I know I said the same thing the first time. This time, I mean it.

Ebert: One and the same.

So... jealous! All those films, of which I have only seen The Fall, sound amazing. None of them to my knowledge has been released in Spain. All of them I want to see.

We do have the discreet but classy San Sebastian International Film Festival, where Frozen River was celebrated last year.

http://www.sansebastianfestival.com/in/index.php

You should try to move some strings and get yourself an invitation for it!

Every year I pay attention to the movies you show at Ebertfest, and every year, as badly as I want to, I regret that I can't make my way north to attend. However your list always informs me of movies worth watching that may not have played in Tulsa, and I make a point to find them on DVD somewhere and watch them.

I must tell you, though, about my viewing of "Baraka". A town south of Tulsa, called Okmulgee, has an old movie theater off of the main square that still operates. It may be one of the last theaters in the US still operating under the Orpheum name, which I consider one of the great movie theater names ever (along with names like "Rialto" and "Majestic"). It was shown in 70mm, and was absolutely awe inspiring.

I wish all the best for this year's Ebertfest. Hope everybody has fun!

Ebert: Okmulgee is one lucky town.

I'll always remember the first time I met you and Gene Siskel.

It's a familiar story and in my case the result of happenstance. I was flipping channels one day and tuned into PBS just as you and Gene were praising a little film called "My Dinner With Andre". The rest is history. And it forever established you in my mind as a champion of cinematic underdogs, and like a superhero armed with a pen as his sword, you've been fighting the good fight ever since.

You gave birth to the Overlooked Film Festival - "Ebertfest" whose mission statement is to showcase films that have been overlooked by the public, film critics or distributors.

"As film exhibition in North America crowds itself ever more narrowly into predictable commercial fodder for an undemanding audience, we applaud those brave, free spirits who still hold faith with the unlimited potential of the cinema." - Roger Ebert

I don't make Films but art is art whatever the medium, and so to the extent you champion the above, you support the Arts and I in turn applaud you for it. For Art "is" demanding. It wants more from you than to just sit there passively. It wants you to think about what you're watching and to feel something while you do. Too many in North America have forgotten that Film is also an artistic medium and with Ebertfest, you help to remind them; and I dare say that's your greatest contribution as a Film critic. What you've given back to the medium and out of genuine love for it. Of what can be achieved when brave souls reach for something higher.

Sadly, I won't be there to see Catinca Untaru, Lee Pace's delightful little co-star in Tarsem's "The Fall" - a film I utterly adored and which mesmerized me from start to finish. I loved Alexandria and Roy Walker aka the Black Bandit! They went on imaginary adventures the likes of which spoke to my very soul; it was like literally being transported into a storybook! I've seen it several time now on DVD and each time, it steals my breath away while making my heart burst with joy. And so needless to say, I'm beyond delighted to hear you're going to show it at Ebertfest.

So too, "Let the Right One In." I've got a weakness for Vampire stories, but I'm a connoisseur about it. I'm not into cheesy horror films - and this is anything but! For as with Supernatural and Buffy and works of that ilk, monsters when used well, serve as poignant metaphors for commenting upon the darker side of humanity; giving voice to all the outcasts and social underdogs of this world, the overlooked, forgotten and abused. "Twilight" on the other hand, was laughable; although it sold tickets, eh? Oh well, they're young. Maybe they'll grow out of it and develop better taste. :)

And you'll be there to help them by promoting Films they SHOULD go see! Arguing a case for why they should, championing Art not Commerce - all that good stuff "Super Roger" does while leaping bad films in a single bound!

I should draw a cartoon of you in cape battling the forces of evil in the guise of the monolithic U.S. distribution system. :)

Side note: It was DVD night at my brother's Thursday. I finally saw "Slum Dog Millionaire" - wonderful film! We also watched HG Well's "The Invisible Man" with Claude Rains from 1933. And a cool, 1961 B/W film-noir piece I'd never heard of, "Blast of Silence" directed by Allen Baron who also played the lead, Frankie Bono.

"Swift, brutal, and black-hearted, Allen Baron’s New York City noir Blast of Silence is a sensational surprise. This low-budget, carefully crafted portrait of a hit man on assignment in Manhattan during Christmastime follows its stripped-down narrative with mechanical precision, yet also with an eye and ear for the oddball idiosyncrasies of urban living and the imposing beauty of the city. At once visually ragged and artfully composed, and featuring rough, poetic narration performed by Lionel Stander, Blast of Silence is a stylish triumph." - Criterion Collection

Then I watched an episode of Supernatural titled "It's a Terrible Life" - it was very witty. And I hope everyone who doesn't believe you have time to read every post while still doing your job, reads THAT. For I did all the above and squeezed in a post. :)

I would watch bad television just to get to see Rufus Sewell. Oh wait, I do.

Slumdog is not a patch to Chop Shop, which itself goes a leap beyond Pushcart. SDM doesn't seem to be arousing even criticism here,and retrospectively there is much vulgarisation and trivialism of painful things. A small screen guy it would be nice to see Baraka in the big and wide and loud. You whet me for The Fall. Woodstock I felt was too long and I could manage only a half(after your favourable comparison of it to the Riefenstahl film.)

I'm sure the festival would be a treat so best of wishes.

I'm jealous of everyone who is going, and I am so happy that people are going to see "The Fall." It's a beautiful, amazing movie and that little girl is a knockout.

Roger,

I live in Tulsa, OK, and although we are the buckle on the Bible Belt (not in and of itself a bad thing), we are also a fairly sophisticated and cosmopolitan "big town" with universities and a lively intellectual life. That said, in this town of almost 400,000, we have one art theatre--the Circle--and thank goodness, the AMC cineplex does show some unusual and hard-to-find films (usually for a 2-week run. I managed to see Apocalypse Now: Redux, The Gray Zone, and a few others there)

Meanwhile, whatever dribble is advertised during the station breaks of American Idol gets 3 or 4 screens. Not everything that is highly advertised or has a big budget or famous American stars is dribble--but it's really hard to deal with the fact that I can't go see 1/2 of what you so tantalizingly discuss, on a big screen with the sympathetic audience and great sound and picture, but I can choose in 1/2 hour intervals when I want to see the big movie of the second.

Is the attitude toward film really different in other nations? I've only been to Canada, Mexico, Belize and England--and didn't get to see a film in any of them. I certainly hope it is--and I hope the attitude changes here--do you see any signs of that? And in a totally random thought, has our new president indicated anything about being a film-watcher? I seem to remember that Bill Clinton had reasonably sophisticated film taste.

Thanks more than I can say for introducing me to great films, great directors, and great actors. Here's to all the cities and towns who make the effort to show the films that live--that reflect and inform our lives, along with the big money-makers.

Ebert: Ever heard of a town not far from Tulsa named Okmulgee, and a theater named the Orpheum? How do I know all this stuff?

Dear RE,
I have a question. Why can't the Ebertfest be held in such a way so that the whole world of cine-lovers can watch?

Ebert: I'll discuss that with the aliens at the end of "Knowing" next time I see them.

I was lucky enough to be in the audience for that 70mm screening of 2001, one of the most memorable movie experiences I've had, sitting dead center in the very last row. One odd thing I remember, though - about half the questions in the Q&A that followed seemed to be from people who were uphappy about things Roger had written about David Lynch. In any case, I hope to make it back to Urbana one of these years for the Fest.

"But if you think Blu-ray does [Baraka] full justice, I want to sit next to you in the Virginia."

You promise?

Okay, here goes: Blu-ray does Baraka full justice.

So I guess I'll meet you and Chaz out front then? :)

Brian Rose

Ebert: Go on in and grab a good seat. We'll find you.

As always, I'm greatly looking forward to attending! It will be my sixth or seventh time at Ebertfest, and I have always left with my horizons expanded, and my love of movies re-energized. I think I can say that over half the movies are ones I would not otherwise have seriously considered taking the trouble to see. But, year after year, I wind up enjoying all but one (or, occasionally, two).

One thing I fairly consistently have trouble with: the programming of a subtitled movie in the late Saturday night slot. By that time, I'm pretty exhausted and sleep-deprived. The extra mental energy required to read the dialogue and watch the images simultaneously, plus the physical back-and-forth-and-back-and-forth
eye movements, will put me to sleep every time. The amine "Metropolis" was sheer torture, with the movie completely ruined by the worst subtitles I have even seen. What a refreshing change when you put "Me and You and Everyone We Know" in that slot!

As a long time resident of Urbana, I too long for the days of the theaters Roger names in his journal. I have very fond memories of all of the old theaters in Champaign and Urbana. One interesting tidbit of the multi-purpose nature of the Virgina theater - our son's wedding was held at the Virgina in July 2007. It was a treat to see his name, along with our new daughter-in-law's, on the Virginia's marquee. The wedding was performed by their minister, and those in attendance were impressed with the ambiance of the Virginia's Art Deco interior. It was such a unique and respectful ceremony, that none of us will forget.

I wish you success with the 2009 Ebertfest, and welcome home - again!

I thought two of the best films I saw this year (and probably in the last 2 decades) was Tarsem's "The Fall" and Slumdog Millionaire. Both were a darling of the indie/filmfest set, but only one them found mainstream media. Do you think that had "The Fall" found a better distributor/promoter that it would be competing with "Millionaire"? In a way, the heart of these two movies are the same, don't you think?

The Fall was a colorful, beautiful film. It reminded me of The Princess Bride, except much brighter. Not something I can watch with my children quite yet, but I will someday. I watched Slumdog, and was fascinated on first viewing, but less so on the 2nd. It lost its poignancy very quickly, but that just be me being over stimulated with the tragedies of the world. I'd love to see "My Winnipeg" to see if it brings back any memories of that fine city. I grew up there, you see, and have fond memories of drinking beers in the Floodway, eating gelato on Osborne, and going to see fine music at the West End Cultural center. If you ever do visit, be sure to grab a pint at the Toad in the Hole on Osborne, and to give the one eyed dog a pat. In my end of the world (New Brunswick, Canada), it is difficult to see indie flicks (sometimes at the university), but if you look under the carpet, they can be found. Next on my list is Trouble the Water....can't wait. All the best at this year's Ebertfest, Roger.

(along with names like "Rialto" and "Majestic").

I live in a town of about 50,000. We have a Rialto - lovingly restored by two guys who love movies - as well as an America, also restored by same. The smaller, fancier Rialto usually shows the artier films (though many art films don't get here, and most are shown for only one night). There is a tobacconist tucked in one corner. The America shows the big films. Both theaters have balconies and lots of neon lights.

The same guys also built two small multiplexes downtown in old warehouse buildings (the Iris and the Fox) and took over the mall theaters too. They are currently building a new multiplex out at the edge of town, in an area that is growing like crazy. My guess is we will have more screens per capita than any other place in the country.

Of course, this is Wyoming, we draw from much of the rest of the state - and the winters are long. ;-)

My great gram was from Okmulgee!

I always wanted to go on that cruise you did. I should have seized the day.

I am still hoping to see Song Sung Blue. What happened with that?

My birthday will be bittersweet on the opening day of ebertfest. I know one day it will be doable... but yes, 'woodstock' is brilliant. Such a visual and auditory feast. I just got finished watching 'Shine a Light', which shows a similar brilliance for finding out the right image... and though Scorsese was 'only' an editor for 'woodstock' I get the impression he had a lot to do with the overall quality of the film. (It's important to note that editors are indeed very important) Frozen River and Let the Right One In and Chop Shop were definitely some of the best of the year... I've loved everything by Maddin i've seen "dracula" and "the saddest music...", and i'm sure he'd be a neat guy to meet... but I can say I know how you could love being able to be involved in a film festival. I've been able to get on the ground level on Birmingham's 'sidewalk moving pictures festival'. I'm screening shorts and I feel so glad to be doing so. I don't care how many bad movies I have to watch, it's so rewarding. I can tell you i've stumbled upon a handful of films that show some promising fresh talent... though revealing those may be against protocol at this point in the process

I think Blu-ray does BARAKA full justice, too. Can I sit by Chaz?

Actually, I don't think this. BARAKA on Blu-ray is a stunning disc, as is THE FALL, two of the five "reference discs" I show to friends unfamiliar with Blu-ray, and this, nearly every week. I have sold a lot of Blu-ray players.

But I saw both movies on film when they were relased orignially -- BARAKA in 70mm at the great one-screen Uptown theater in Minneapolis -- and while THE FALL actually plays BETTER in my very well appointed home theater, BARAKA in Blu-ray, for all its splendour, is no 70mm. You're right to say that this format is still superior to digital exhibition (I've never seen MaxiVision, unfortunatley, and neither, it seems, will anyone else.)

My brother, a filmmaker, when he graduated from CalArts, pretty much had a deal with Sony to make one of his scripts. (Of course, you never know -- there are probably 1,000 such deals with new filmmakers that fizzle out along the way.) Ben had them convinced that 1) since the budget was incredibly low, he could, in fact, direct the film; 2) he could cast it as he chose; and 3) he could even shoot in black-and-white, which is how he saw the film in his mind's eye.

But then he said he wanted to shoot it in 70mm. This was fifteen years ago; 70mm was still a viable medium, and though not that many theaters could or would still do it, there had even been a recent mini-renaissance beginning with FAR AND AWAY and a few others.

But Sony said absolutely not. They mumbled something about the cost being double, but their thinking wasn't as rational as that. They just had an institutional taboo against that difficult, bulky, temperamental medium where each reel has to be hand-checked for flaws, and one in thrity discarded. Why woulnd't Ben compromise?

Becuase, he said, he needed the resolution only a 70mm negative could provide. The film was set in a housing development, and he needed to see little faces in the windows in long-shot. Probably that freaked 'em out too, worried about ancillary markets. The discussion between Ben and Alex DeCastro of Sony is now famous in our family, transcribed verbatim by Ben. "If I compromise at the foundational level of the medium itself, where will it all end?" Ben said. "I'll tell you where. A screenplay on multi-colored paper filled with so many changes, the ripples will tear the thing apart."

Over the years, I've vacillated between seeing this as a committed artist stainding up for what he believed in, and an arrogant young person without any grounding in adult compromise, or even reality. I now believe it to be both. And my heart breaks for the film I, too, saw when I read that wonderful script. We really lost something there -- as we did when we let go of large format film.

Roger, I'm proud to say we managed to show about half of the films you have listed here in Montgomery, Alabama (and we also got our projectors from James Bond, though not 70mm).

Last year was a horrible year financially for the indie film biz, and this year is going to be worse. Borderline art theatres without a cushion will be forced out of business and never return.

We appreciate your support for the obscure art film AND they places that show them. Keep pushing, we're going to need lots of help in the next few years.

Ebert: Keep fighting the good fight! You have some wonderful films coming up:

http://www.capritheatre.org/

Roger,

I was thrilled to see that you are showing "The Last Command" and sad that I live too far away to see it.

Just out of curiosity, have you even shown one of Erich von Stroheim's films at Ebertfest? "Foolish Wives" is one of my favorite films and I would love to see it on a big screen. If you can get it for 2010 I'll clear my schedule!

This will be the FIFTH Ebertfest for me. I recommend it to anyone who loves seeing films in an impeccable setting with others who share the same enthusiasm. The film selection this year is better than ever. Just a note to the 55+ crowd, there may still be aome passes available as part of the Elderhostel program. See the Elderhostel website.

Oh how I wish this festival could be "farmed" out to other theaters around the country...simulcast the intros via video-conferencing so that cinephiles everywhere could enjoy. I realize the 70mm viewings would be impossible to recreate but the rest would be great to see. I need to get to Urban next year.

Mr Ebert,

Is it within your financial means to buy the Art?

I think about how Montreal has one only historic cinema left, the Imperial, (in which you have likely seen a film) and how the will to preserve it permanently is lacking. It's used for one or two weeks a year during the World Film Festival (which itself is in tatters).

But to me, that is the place where I saw *Breaking the Waves* and heard Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan sing, only months before he died.

Can't buy the spiritual, but perhaps can house it.

I live in Toronto and we’re lucky to have the Toronto International Film Festival where you have 10 days to binge on such fare as might appear at Eberfest. Outside of that the pickings are decidedly slimmer. It’s almost as if you need to stock up at the festival so you can make it through the next 365 days.

The neighbourhood I live in used to have two first-run theatres within walking distance (20 minutes at a leisurely pace through residential streets). Now one is a bookstore (where they’ve preserved the theatre architecture); the other sits empty. I can still recall seeing Saving Private Ryan at the former and then walking home on a still warm autumn night not yet recovered from that opening sequence recreating the landings on Omaha beach.

A second-run theatre is a short subway ride away, part of a city-wide chain of such theatres. There was a time when many had to close down though some have since returned. I saw Amelie at one such theatre (there was a lineup outside down the block) and, just recently, my first Kurasowa film – High and Low.

Why anyone would prefer to see a movie at home – big screen TV or no – I have never been able to understand.

Ebert: I hope the TIFF Lighthouse helps.

I wish I could see all the movies on your list, but I HAVE to see "My Winnipeg"! Growing up on the Canadian border in a little town in ND, this was the "big" city we went to for adventure (and the drinking age of 18). It was a mysterious and exciting place for us. But how can I manage to see it? With two little ones keeping us home, I keep a wish list of movies to see with my wife once they're old enough for a baby-sitter (going to movies for us involves driving an hour to another town). But we'll never be able to see anything like these except at home on our tv--if they're available on DVD. What an awesome time it would be to attend one of your festivals.

Considering the fact that you usually include Youtube clips in your blog entries, have you ever discovered unknown, zero-budget shorts on the internet that you would consider showing at a festival like this? It seems more and more like the internet is going to be the future of film distribution for people without the resources and connections of big studios or even the more successul, established "independent" directors, but it seems as if there's still a undeserved stigma against internet videos, as if they all must be substanceless viral pranks with no real merit. I think it would be interesting if film critics began to approach the medium with more serious interest.

Dear Q. Le : You said "film making has become such an money-mongering industry that it creates a void of artistic and intellectual apathy for the cinematic-medium, so to see anyone or anything show something non-mainstream – indie, documentaries, foreign – is inspiring and refreshing."

I'm wondering what you base this assertion on. I strongly believe that the type of film making you are referring to has less to do with money-mongering, as it does with power-mongering. Or the perception that being involved with hollywood means you have power. This is partly due to the fact that very few movies ever make their producers a dime, and even rarer a good 10% return on investment. Certainly people want to get that investment back, and money is an issue, but its secondary for many.

There are many movies released every year that are paid for, directed, and acted by people who have a passion about the cinematic art form. I'm willing to wager that approximately 30% of movies released in the year are of this quality, and it would be higher if some of them ever got a distribution deal that would allow them to be released (which probably won't be an issue in another year or two, since they'll just end up on iTunes, or even better, in the digital library of NetFlix).

Also, I really don't think the film industry has changed that much over time.

No Joe Versus The Volcano again? Sigh...

Not that I'd be coming, as I'm in London. I just love the idea of this film being shown to anyone who may not have seen it.

And you mentioned having a "brain cloud" above, which made me read the entry again to see if I'd missed it!

As an alum of UIUC, I unfortunately did not take full advantage of trying to attend Ebertfest when I was there for a mix of reasons. I managed to only make it to one screening in my 4 years as an undergrad, when Danny Boyle's "Millions" delighted the audience. It still is the most unique movie going experience I've had, and I otherwise would have never seen it, let alone purchasing the DVD. Thank you for that experience as well as for helping to bring about this wonderful festival every year.

I'm still a little ticked about the subtitles on the LET THE RIGHT ONE IN Blu-Ray. But it's awesome that you're showing it at your fest. I'll manage to get up there and see it someday. Has the film grown in your estimation since you reviewed it?

This is fantastic. I always read of your Ebertfest (often mentioned in your Great Movies reviews), and I wish I could be there. I've seen a few of these films (The Fall, My Winnipeg, Let The Right One In), but I was only able to actually se one of them in the theater (LTROI). After the clip you showed from Barraka, I say that I MUST now go and purchase that film. I had thought about it for a while, especially after seeing the Bluray at Borders, but I have yet to pick it up. It looks like a truly astounding treat.

What confounds me, though, is that Synecdoche isn't being shown. I could be wrong, but it seems as if you highly admired the film (maybe considered it the best of the year, which I did), and that it would be shown. Oh well, I guess. A great film, one that has yet to be realized at its full potential by audiences.

Savvy

My friends and family and I all you a huge heap of thanks for recommending "The Fall". I've been telling everyone I know (and thousands I don't--via Netflix customer reviews!) that this is "the best movie you've never seen!"

How I wish I could be there to meet Catinca!

This sounds like a MARVELOUS festival. Bravo!

I am grateful that I have already seen some of the movies at Ebert Fest including The Fall and Let the Right One In thanks to your reviews and promotion from other websites like Awards Daily. I find it both enticing and disappointing that some great films do not get enough attention because they deserve an audience and the potential still exists for them to get that chance.

If any kind of attention leading someone to watch a worthwhile story is considered good promotion, so be it. I learned about an amazing and moving Japanese animated series called Neon Genesis Evangelion through a video parodying fan dubs that re-edit and satirize popular anime shows. Even after a whole decade, Evangelion remains little known even within the largest facades of anime fandom but maintains a high rank as one of the finest pieces of anime or animation ever. Its focus on people on the edge of sanity and humanity's place or possible destiny in the face of the cosmos harkens to the works Arthur C. Clarke and Werner Herzog, amongst others. Much like the movies at Ebert Fest, it hasn't lost the capacity to reach new audiences.

It is disappointing that animated films like Sita Sings the Blues cannot find a distributor, but it is down right injustice when a distributor refuses to give a masterpiece a release. Disney owns the North American rights to all of Studio Ghiblis films including Spirited Away and the upcoming Ponyo and have done a satisfying job of promoting them in the US. However, they refuse to give a proper release of any kind to Iso Takahata's Only Yesterday. The film is a small masterpiece, and a prime example of the realms American animators fear to go. But if more animated films like Only Yesterday were made in the US, we would not be having the discussions again and again each year about whether an animated film could get nominated or win Best Picture, as overrated as that sounds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3npFYZsumVM

I'm surprised to see that Encounters at the End of the World will not be at your festival. I saw it in the summer and it has really stayed with me, popping up in my mind at the most bizarre moments (Herzog tends to do that to you). I really think it is some sort of cerebral masterpiece. The music is haunting. The interrogation of the penguin expert is perhaps the single funniest scene from 2008. The message for the alien, signifying human existence is sublime. Of course you know this, the darn thing is dedicated to you. Anyway, I assume if you were to pick one overlooked documentary from last year, Trouble the Water is certainly the way to go (I remember my theater bursting into applause after she finished her final song...pity the academy didn't acknowledge it).

P.S.
I'd kill to see Woodstock with an audience. That is going to be one fun showing.

I just did a search on YouTube for Ebertfest, and there are only two 'pages' of clips -- heavy on Alan Rickman and Strawberry Alarm Clock. Is there footage from previous years that may be declassified & posted? Would love to get a taste of the action.

Would love to afford to go, too! Setting my sights on 2011.

I have an upconverting DVD player with a projector and I am very happy with it. Can Blue-Ray really be that much better?

Greetings Roger and fellow readers!

Just a very brief note to give positive affirmative to two of this year's choices at the festival: "Last Command" and "My Winnipeg." Both are fantastic picks sure to expand and delight the mindsets of festival goers.

I've utilized the "share" option to post a link to this particular installment of Roger's blog on my Facebook page and highly encourage others to follow suit if the spirit moves them. Though I cannot be there in person, this festival has really captured my imagination.

Congratulations to Roger and the dedicated volunteers who make it happen!

Chris Alders
Nova Scotia, Canada

Pardon me for getting off-topic for a moment. My comment is inspired by Michael Mirasol's, who says above: "Finding [the movie "The Fall"] (legitimately) in the Asia Pacific region is hopeless." Piracy is, indeed, one of the evils the movie industry faces and no part of it more so than the independent sector, but filmmakers are, I'm pleased to say, fighting back.

Ángel Muñíz is a Dominican director, easily the first local success in our country's movie market with his "Nueba Yol". You may look him up on IMDB. His latest release last august was a critique on poverty and corruption called "Ladrones a Domicilio", which loosely translates as "Home-Delivery Thieves". It was heavily pirated, so it failed at the box-office.

Yet a funny thing happened. Last Wednesday Muñíz, using street vendors, started distributing the DVD release of his movie at the same price the pirates sell their bootlegs. Store-quality discs with sealed packaging, printed surfaces, etc., available on stoplight around the city for 100 pesos (roughly US$2.80).

The local support for his initiative has been overwhelming. On a radio interview today, he indicated that he's already had to order more copies to fill the demand.

You might assume he won't make much back using this method, but all the profits go to him, the filmmaker, and not some idiot with a camcorder inside a theater.

Great choices, once again. I admire the ones that I've seen (LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, SITA SINGS THE BLUES, THE FALL, FROZEN RIVER) and wish I could be there for the ones I haven't. Oh, well. Maybe next year.

Looks like a great time, Roger. Maybe next year I can make the trek to the heartland. That's the real America, unlike out here in Los Angeles.

The disappearing art house is also here in LA. Yes, we have the Nuart, the New Beverly, the Silent, and thank god the Egyptian and the Aero, but all those theaters are spitting distance from one another and it's a huge time commitment to get to the Hollywood area from anywhere else, like Long Beach or Orange County. I have taken to blocking off an entire afternoon to get to a 7pm show at any of these venues. Rush hour starts at 2:45 and lasts well beyond 7, so if it's something you really want to see, you'd better plan on having lunch near the theater and wandering around Amoeba records until the show starts. You wouldn't think there'd be a concentration of art houses on the west side and none in other places, like the valley or San Bernardino County, given the population density of all of southern CA, but there it is.

The Art Theater in Long Beach closed for about a year and then finally reopened. It's very nice. But for my money, my favorite theatre is The Movies on Exchange in Portland, ME, where I really cut my teeth on all the European films of the time and some classic US stuff, too. Nothing says art house like having the door swing open at some pivotal juncture and not being able to read the subtitles for the snow blowing in.

Hey, I've still got a 35mm print of Poche D'argent color shifting in my non-climate controlled storage. If you have any desire to screen it, I'll throw it on the bus to IL. I haven't seen it myself since I rented a drive-in in North Carolina and did a one-night private screening. We all stood around in berets drinking champagne, watching the actors' costumes lean toward the green end of the spectrum and then to the red. Film geeks. God, what a bunch.

Since you're showing Woodstock, make sure you crank up up the volume, especially for The Who.

OFF TOPIC RE. 3D films :

Mr Ebert,

someone recently posted a question to the excellent site "ask Metafilter (http://ask.metafilter.com/) ", asking about 3D Films, in particular,
"Is the theatrical 3D film experience (e.g. 'Monsters vs. Aliens') much better than it used to be? Eyestrain, headaches, nausea used to be what you suffered through in the old red-blue glasses days in order to say you saw a 3D movie...has that gotten good enough now that it's safe to take, e.g., a 7 year old boy to these things?"

I just thought I'd nudge this discussion your way, as you are knowledgeable and opinionated about such things!!

Forgive my intrusion!

David Roche
Athens, Ohio

Since you've already lined up Catinca Untaru for THE FALL, is there any chance you'll be able to lure Lina Leandersson or Kare Hedebrant from LET THE RIGHT ONE IN to attend as well? I know that the filmmaker and their families have done a commendable job of keeping them out of the publicity maelstrom so their adolescence won't be troubled by the vagaries of fame, so it would seem unlikely they would come. But I think if there is anyone who could persuade one exception to their rule, it would be you, and if there is one event where they deserve to see how much their work has moved people, it would be yours.
Plus, I think it would be neat for Catinca and Lina to meet. I always get a moment of elevation when two children from different parts of the world, who would ordinarily never cross paths, get to intersect and befriend each other at a festival or awards ceremony, linked in their talent and love of performing - makes you feel like all those bromides about how art can unite are not just empty treacle.

Once I started down the list, in my mind, I was chanting please let Sita Sings the Blues be there.
And sure enough, BAM! There it was. Awesome. I had the sad fortune to see it on my wee monitor, only to find, after viewing it twice, that I needed to see it again on the big screen. It screams for the big screen. The spectacle that it is cries out for it with every deliciously rendered frame of whimsy, color and imagination. And now it's at Ebertfest. Cool.

Mr. Ebert,

I live in Athens, GA as a student in UGA's Grady College, and recently attended my first film festival ever, the Robert Osborne Classic Film Festival, of which I believe Nate Kohn is the exec. producer. I was fortunate enough to see Sunset Boulevard (first time!) and E.T. on the big screen and it was as much a joyous event as my discovery of your writings. Your writing and your ceaseless passion for film has, I dare say, been more singularly inspiring and influential in my life than any other conceivable factor. You have a remarkable and uncanny tendency to articulate beautifully ideas and notions that I feel in my heart and gut but suffer an inability to articulate myself. I long to attend Ebertfest. Hopefully I'll see you next year. In the meantime, thank you kindly for providing the next several films to bless the top of my Netflix queue. Baraka sounds stunning, though I'll have to settle for the lowly DVD version.

Thanks for being so damn awesome. Please keep it up.

B.B.

Speaking of movie palaces such as the Virginia and the Art, I live and work in Tampa, FL., and when it's cool enough, on my lunch hours, I walk by the Tampa Theatre, one of the great movie palaces in America. During the day, a lone middle-aged lady mans the ticket booth hoping someone will walk by and score a ticket. At night, before every show, a legendary elderly lady named Rosa Rio gives a mini-concert on the Mighty Wurlitzer organ. How many other movie palaces in this country can claim that!? Hopefully, enough. The Tampa Theatre, I'm sorry to say, is the one of the scant few arteries for independent or foreign film programming in the South.

Interesting sidenote: the Tampa is believed to be haunted by a man called Foster Finkley, who died in 1965 while working the projector. There are semi-daily tours of the theatre, and according to Wikipedia, visitors reportedly hear voices when no one else is around and feel gushes of air. Those are the stepping stones, quite possibly, of a halfway-decent scary movie. Ironically, it would quite possibly be block-booked into every AMC in America. Hopefully, not before premiering at Ebertfest!

If you will allow me to go off-script and wax your car, so to speak, I must say, Mr. Ebert, that your writing has not only become greater than ever since your surgery, it has taken on considerable urgency. When the written word is your main means of expression, every word counts. Not only does every word count with you, the value of those words is quadruple. Keep this up. We need you.

There's an annual festival in my city called "The Heartland Film Festival," but I must admit I've never attended it, because it has always been marketed as a "Christian film festival." Nothing wrong with that. Just not my personal predeliction.

Some day I'll make it to Eberfest or Toronto. "Frozen River," "Chop Shop," and "Let the Right One In" are favorites of mine that I've only seen from DVD onto my (admittedly large) monitor. I am jealous of those who get (or had) the chance to see these great, moving films on the big screen.

An aside about "dumbing down" sub-titles for DVDs: I always assumed sub-titled translations were, by necessity, inferior to spoken language. But, with a Netflix queue overflowing with classic foreign films, I have never before thought about what I was possibly missing. Would I rather the sub-titles read like poetry or that I get simplified translation and infer the rest from the voices and inflections of the actors? Dummy me, I never questioned it.

Why aren't the sub-titles, on wide screen or small, simply the words of the script, without blocking instructions and stage direction? Why would a DVD have different sub-titles than the theatrical release of the same film?

A second aside regarding Roger's opinion of 3-D as expressed in his review of "Monsters vs. Aliens": AMEN AMEN AMEN AND HALLELUJAH FOREVER AND EVER AMEN. Couldn't say it better. Thank you, Roger.

I was going to ask if there was a listing of the films shown at the previous festivals, but I eventually found the link to the Festival Archives at the bottom of the Ebertfest home page. (Personally, I think it should have been included in the top navigation bar.)

Festival Archives Index

What stands out most in Baraka which I saw months ago is the so called monkey dance(above clipped).Weird is too feeble a word--it captures an authentic atom of the infinite variety of the miracle which is our shared existence as humans.

Weltha Wood wrote: (Tulsa has) one art theatre--the Circle--and thank goodness, the AMC cineplex does show some unusual and hard-to-find films...

The AMC did indeed start showing independent and foreign films fairly soon after they opened (around 1997). Before that the Cinemark 8 down on south Memorial did a pretty good job of showing those films, along with some classics like Citizen Kane and Casablanca.

The Cirle has been a godsend, though, for showing some really hard-to-find independent and foreign films. I've yet to visit there, mostly because I still hold onto some fond memories of attending that theater when I was a child and seeing such cinematic classics as "Battle For the Planet of the Apes".

Weltha, were you ever aware of the ongoing once-a-month film series that took place up at the Allred Theater in Pryor? Some fantastic films were shown there throughout the 90's, like "La Dolca Vita", "Dr. Strangelove", "The Wind", and countless other classics from the 1920's to the early 1990's. I think the Oklahoma theatrical premiere of "Andre Rublev" was shown then as well; I know a great print of that movie was played. The series was underwritten by Rogers State College, which unfortunately pulled the plug, so to speak, during mid-year and the film series has not been revived there.

Ebert: That's not a real good reason for not attending the Circle.

What an incredible lineup! Looks like this is going to be the best Ebertfest yet. "Woodstock" in 70mm is going to be unbelievable, the next best thing to dropping brown acid and tripping out to Yasgur's farm. (And am I correct in guessing that the "surprise guest" might be a filmmaker with the initials MS who worked on the movie? Or am I sopping, soaking wet?) I can't wait to sit in the darkened Virginia and see Joan Baez singing "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot" in 70mm...Wow!

If it's not too early, I'd like to suggest a film for next year. It's director Sean Walsh's "Bloom", a 2004 adaptation of Joyce's "Ulysses" starring Stephen Rea as Leopold Bloom and the gorgeous Angeline Ball as Molly. Adapting "Ulysses" is impossible, of course, and not everything in the film works, but it's a more than valiant attempt at the impossible. I don't think you reviewed it, and I'm not even sure it received a theatrical release in the US, but it's available on DVD with a good director's commentary. (I saw it in a Dublin cinema around Bloomsday 2004.)The performances of Rea and Ball especially deserve to be seen.

See you at the Virginia!

´ Ebert: Sounds great, but alas "Woodstock" was not filmed in 70mm. "Baraka" is the only 70 this year.

Gino Basso wrote: "Why anyone would prefer to see a movie at home – big screen TV or no – I have never been able to understand."

In a perfect world, everyone who goes to the movies regardless of age or gender, would treat the experience as something shared and not owned. Ie: you bought a movie ticket dude, not the entire theater - STOP kicking the back of my chair! And while you're at it, turn off your stupid cell phone and stop text-messaging your friends; the light is distracting! And excuse me, I hate to break into your conversation while I'm trying to watch the movie, but could you wait until it's over to then chat about your boyfriends?!

I'm not exaggerating when I say that half the movies I see are ruined by the selfishness of others aka TEENAGERS. And why I never look forward to seeing movies anymore. That's not to be confused with what I want you understand, which is to see a film on the big screen. I'm just tired of walking away feeling pissed-off 50% of the time.

My Sony WEGA is 27" and large enough for me to see things, but it's not the same thing. I miss how things used to be, and how much easier it was to enjoy it.

I was born in 1964 in New Westminster City (outside Vancouver) and where I grew up with single-screen theaters boasting names like "The Paramount"...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/142/339177540_1b45d77048.jpg?v=0

The Paramount Theatre is one of the oldest surviving motion picture theatre buildings in British Columbia. Established in 1903 by Frank Kerr as the Edison Theatre, in 1948 it was leased to Paramount-Famous Players, who completed interior and exterior renovations. This included a new neon sign with the name Paramount Theatre. The front facade recalls a bygone era with the building's central entry featuring mahogany doors and chromed hardware, and a ticket booth with aluminum sash and black tile. And inside there's stepped balconies and a proscenium arch and a curtained stage. It eventually closed and re-opened as a strip club.

I also went to "The Columbian"...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/130/339082363_c8948393a7.jpg?v=0

The Columbia Theatre is valued as one of the only surviving atmospheric theatres in British Columbia and one of only a few remaining in Canada. It was built in 1927 during the heyday of the theatre chains, when the design of the building was considered a key part of the total movie-going experience. The eclectic ornamentation of the exterior reflects the exoticism of the popular Period Revival styles, promoted by Hollywood as appropriate for neighbourhood movie palaces. These romantic themes were carried into the interior. Murals of romantic Mediterranean scenery, lanterns, plaster screens, wrought iron trellis work covered with climbing roses and twinkling stars in a midnight sky gave the patrons the illusion of being seated in an exotic walled garden.

NOTE: After it stopped showing movies it operated as the Raymond Burr Performing Arts Centre; he was born in New Westminster, that's he wound-up getting a building named after him. It was the custom to have a picture of Raymond Burr included somewhere on each set, with the first toast on the opening night of every production always dedicated to his memory. The Centre was commonly referred to simply as "the Burr" - an intimate, 238-seat theatre which was supposed to the expand to a 650-seat regional performing arts facility. It was demolished in 2006.

But thankfully his work lives on; and who could ever forget his menacing Thorwald - the salesman with a bedridden wife in Hitchcock's "Rear Window".

Those are the places I used to know. That's where I'd sit and watch 70mm prints and the usher would go "Shh!" and when he did, people listened. That eventually changed and by the time I was in my late teens, I was going to shopping malls to see a movie. Now? I avoid them like the plague. A pair of newer but smaller multi-screen theaters in downtown Vancouver with decent sound, terraced seats and a lack of teenagers, are the only places I go; with the exception of distant Art houses showing less popular fare. I have to leave the city where I live and travel into another just to increase the odds from 50/50 to 70/30 in my favor that I won't have a film ruined for me; the closest screens to me are BIG BOX multiplexes.

Why anyone would prefer to see a movie at home..?

There's my answer. I love movies too, but I love enjoying watching them in peace, even MORE. And why I'm more selective and really picky now about what I will go see. And based on my critera not the studio's, which doesn't help. For I love both Jane Austen and Dexter! And the evil M.U.D - aka monolithic U.S. distribution system. thinks in terms of categories. Anyone outside that box and looking to avoid teenagers at the same time, will have to travel far. Sigh.

We don't get Netflix in Canada, by the way.

Ebert: Damn, girl!

@Mike re: subtitles

To see what effect different subtitle translations can have on the viewing experience, find a DVD with multiple subtitles. For instance, I recently watched the Criterion edition of Kurosawa's Throne of Blood, which has (according to the Criterion website): "Two alternative subtitle translations: a new version from renowned Japanese-film translator Linda Hoaglund, and Kurosawa expert Donald Richie."

I found myself distracted for the first fifteen minutes of the film, switching between the subtitles and rewinding the film to compare them. One set was more literal, the other more poetic (which I felt was a better fit for a Shakespeare adaptation).

Ebert: Which one was that?

I lived in Fort Wayne, Indiana for two years where there is a wonderful theater run by a few retirees. They show only independent and foreign films and charged students just 3 dollars. The owners would also refill your popcorn after the movie! I grew used to being able to see all those smaller movies I wanted to see there, so now that I've moved away I miss it dearly as I have to search all over Denver for many of these movies, usually unsuccessfully. I just wish movie theaters would show more than bigger budget films once in a while.

To Julie B on March 27, 2009 7:05 AM,

Rufus Sewell appeared in BBC's Middlemarch 1994. Just thought that you might be interested (if you haven't seen it already). It's not bad television at all.

You complain about art films being shunned away, but then praise a movie like AUSTRALIA? A film that obviously was not trying to say anything new and cost at least twenty times what these art films cost to make? I also got the feeling from the tone of your review that you were endorsing it BECAUSE it was just entertaining fluff. Maybe if people stopped giving movies like AUSTRALIA a free pass just because they're "fun", then maybe we'll get more art films in Regal cinemas and Lowes theaters. I've been reading some of the reviews for MONSTERS VS. ALIENS and a majority of them comment on how lackluster the characters and story are but then go on and recommend it anyway based solely on the ideas that its a "kids' movie" or the "3-D is astounding" or that it was meant to be "just a fun summer movie" (even though its only March). Doesn't some of the responsiblilty in promoting art films fall in the movie critics' hands? You complain about MONSTERS VS. ALIENS being too gimmicky in your review, but you also praised THE POLAR EXPRESS and BEOWULF for their use of 3-D. Wasn't the 3-D in those movies just as gimmicky? I mean, did you honestly learn anything from those movies that you didn't already know before watching them? Did they make you think about things as much as CHOP SHOP did? If the answer is "no" then isn't the only reason why those movies were made is BECAUSE of the 3-D? Zemeckis is going to release an adaptation of A CHRISTMAS CAROL this Christmas using the same techniques as THE POLAR EXPRESS and BEOWULF. Is this really necessary? Regardless of the technology do you really expect to learn something about what A CHRISTMAS CAROL is about from this adaptation that you haven't already learned from the countless others that have been filmed or written, or from the book itself? Again, isn't the only reason THIS movie is being made is for using 3-D technology too, not for saying something new? James Cameron's AVATAR will be coming out this holiday season as well and from what I've read about the story it only retreads everything we've ever read or seen portrayed in movies about war. Only this time it conveys its message through the use of nine-foot cat people. By all accounts, this movie cost three hundred million dollars to make and who knows how much to promote it. Just think what that money could of done for films like FROZEN RIVER or CHOP SHOP. But, I predict critics will react to both Zemeckis and Cameron's movies the same way they are reacting to MONSTERS VS. ALIENS, or how you reacted to THE POLAR EXPRESS and BEOWULF. Do you not think that supporting these movies for these reasons doesn't contribute to the isolation of art films?

Ebert: I deplore 3-D but I do not deplore mainstream entertainment.

Thank God for the Capri Theater: the only place in the State of Alabama to see art films. Now playing: The Class. I wish I could get down there more.

And one day I'll make it to Ebertfest.

I think you should show "Playtime" in 70mm every year as a matter of principle.

Better yet... Playtime should be in perpetual release, like Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Dear SFB,

To clarify, I meant that the film industry -- specifically Hollywood -- generally favors formula and derivative film types with slight variations. I am not chastising those involved in film making -- I greatly admire the dedication of cast and crew in putting together the scale of every film project -- but I believe people are more inclined to appreciate movies less as artistic/intellectual stimulation and more as entertainment; with the latter sentiment more predominant, the biggest player in the film industry (Hollywood) naturally bends towards formula, which restricts a great deal of artistic capacity on anyone's part.

That said, I'd still argue that movie making is an investment -- at least in Hollywood. As for power-mongering, sometimes both money- and power-mongering are too similar they become interchangeable which, in this case, it's rather feasible. I am rather pathetic when it comes to understanding monetary value, but I do understand that publicity from a (successful) movie generates even more monetary gain in addition to theater revenue: products, endorsements, TV appearances (paid, of course), future project prospects, etc. Of course there are quality films released every year; however, more and more quality films tend to stem from smaller, more independent productions and only gain significant notice from reception film festivals such as the Cannes and Toronto; from there, bigger distributors pick them up, generally releasing them for pre-Oscar viewing. Like any other publicity benefits, Oscar attention is fantastic for the distributor and producers who choose the film, regardless of its original budget or scale.

Perhaps I am over-generalizing, but from what I've seen so far (which isn't much I admit -- I'm still a second year undergraduate in college), the Hollywood bubble -- from big scale productions to big scale producers -- is, by nature, limited in artistic development: anything thats too extreme or different from formula is double-edged investment. These said films consequently find production feasibility in smaller, more independent studios with lower budgets and less distribution power than the big guns in Hollywood (I'm looking at you, Disney). So yes, quality films do get released every year, but they originate from smaller, non- or less-Hollywood-raveled studio productions as the years go by, and only get picked up by major Hollywood distributors after their successful reception at film festivals. So it seems.

Roger,
Sounds like Ebertfest will be a blast for all attendees!

In your summary of "Let the Right One In" you say, "the American DVD release were famously dumbed down"... I have just received the DVD of this film and was planning to watch tomorrow but fear its the "dumbed down" version. Should I bother watching this edition or wait for the restored version? What exactly makes it "dumbed down".

I've been excited to see this film for many months now...

Thanks!
Chris Ortman

Ebert: Read about it here:

http://iconsoffright.com/news/2009/03/let_the_wrong_subtitles_in_to.html

Gah!

I'm heading out to Urbana next weekend to see a friend, go to a concert, see a movie at the Virginia (apparently, it's E.T.), look around campus (it's time to look at grad school), and check out the Jane Addams Bookstore, all on my tax return, all a few weeks in advance of Ebertfest.

I hope I can make it next year, even if it's just for the weekend shows. If I wind up becoming in Illini, save me a seat in the future.

Beyond the Virginia and Jane Addams, anything else I should see?

Ebert: The Great Room of the Library, the National Center for Supercomputer Applications, the Quad, Memorial Stadium (birthplace of the huddle, Homecoming and pro football, via Red Grange), Max Abramovich's Assembly Hall (largest rim-supported building in the world), Loredo Taft's Alma Mater and Abraham Lincoln statues, Steak n Shake (3), and my birthplace at 410 E. Washington.

I know that there are two dogs in "My Dog Skip", Moose and Enzo. (Both were in "Frasier".) I wonder which dog showed up? Anyway, I hope to catch Ebertfest one of these days.

By Marie Haws, "I have to leave the city where I live and travel into another just to increase the odds from 50/50 to 70/30 in my favor that I won't have a film ruined for me; the closest screens to me are BIG BOX multiplexes."

The experience of a movie theatre is still highly respected in Switzerland. One doesn't even snack during the film, but only during the intermisssion (which is included in every film, however short, for the purpose of snacking) because snacking inherently includes noise such as plastic wrap noises, etc. Distracting noise is not countenanced in a movie theatre in Switzerland. Social pressure is a powerful thing.

Do you have any idea why "The Fall" was not nominated for a single Oscar in the visual and editing sections? Or did it win a bunch of technical awards that were given on the earlier date?

I'm just enormously proud that Guy Maddin keeps getting all this Ebert love. The Canuck pride is bursting out of me.
"My Winnipeg" was on my own year end list.
Maddin is a genius, an iconoclast even in a country where our mainstream is populated with Egoyan, Cronenberg, Lepage, and Arcand. That is too say- if WE think he's weird... brilliant, but weird...

RE: Ebert: Sounds great, but alas "Woodstock" was not filmed in 70mm. "Baraka" is the only 70 this year.

Thanks for clearing my brainfog, Roger. I must've been smoking something Woodstockish when I wrote that last post.

With regards to deploring 3-D, is it just not there yet for you technically? Can you envision any sort of 3-D experience that would allow a more immersed experience, a 3-D that doesn't call attention to itself?

Boy, I wish Carbondale, IL still had an art theater. We get some overlooked and independent films sometimes, but not as often as I would like. I didn't get to see Synecdoche, NY or Let The Right One In until DVD and both are now on my top 10 of 2008.

I think one important thing to do, if you don't live near an art theater, is to obtain great films that people wouldn't otherwise see and show them to open minded people, even if it's just on a TV at their house. One of my all time favorite films is Todd Solondz's "Happiness," which I hesitate to say is a favorite because of the subject matter. But when people have never heard of it, I show it to them, and it always inspires strong reactions and great discussion.

I wish I could attend Ebertfest this year (only a two hour train ride) but alas, it comes on a week where I have three major papers and a short film due. Definitely next year!

RE monsters v aliens

is it possible to see MVA without the glasses ala coraline

i have vertigo and dont want to take chances

how About UP

Ebert: It's showing mostly in non-3D theaters.

Ebert: Damn, girl!

Exactly, major suckage! You guys get Netflix - that's like renting DVD's from God.

Anderson wrote: "The experience of a movie theatre is still highly respected in Switzerland. One doesn't even snack during the film, but only during the intermisssion (which is included in every film, however short, for the purpose of snacking) because snacking inherently includes noise such as plastic wrap noises, etc. Distracting noise is not countenanced in a movie theatre in Switzerland. Social pressure is a powerful thing."

Hi Anderson!

Really? You live in Switzerland?! Ooo! A chance to practise! Ahem, clearing throat...

Non posso dire a Roger che guardo molti pellicole e programmi televisivi con le torrenti, perché non è legale; sorriso! Ma, questo è l'unico metodo per vedere alcune cose, eh?

We now return you to our regularly scheduled language...

Gee; I hope you speak Italian? My German sucks. My French is okay but only for simple things. And you're lucky that folks behave better in movie theaters over there; technology has made it very convenient for some people to be even ruder, sigh.

I wish I could hear "Let the Right one In" in Swedish and understand it! I read Magnet Releasing (which is handling the DVD) has responded to the controversy by agreeing to change the subtitles and use the theatrical subtitles for copies manufactured from this point on - but does that mean your local video store is going to replace their crappy versions? Probably not. E per questo motivo, perché amo il Internet! :)

I wish I had a bag of money. I'd fly to Ebertfest and catch the movie there with PROPER subs! And speaking of subtitles...

Where do you stand Roger, on the whole yellow vs white issue? Me? I like white - but only when there's a faint outline in black so it'll read better in a B/W movie. I also like it when the subs aren't "too" close to the bottom. A girl friend in Vancouver actually does the CC and Subs for Film and TV projects - and I used to envy her getting to watch movies and television shows for a living! But then she told me about all the REALLY BAD stuff she has to sit through; "mind numbing crap" I think was the phrase.

And I thought of you. Chuckle; no no, not your blog! Rather, all the really bad movies you've had to sit through over the decades. I guess it just goes to show you the power of a really GOOD movie; I mean, something has to be repairing all those gray cells damaged by the likes of "I Spit on your Grave". :)

P.S. Have you seen "Dangerous Beauty", Julie B? Venice AND Rufus Sewell. They should show that movie to people who don't believe in a God - just to muddy the issue for the hell of it.

Grin.

As I do not usually get the opportunity/can't afford to view films in theaters, I rely mainly on DVDs and HD-TVs. Recently I had the delight to see "Frozen River" on Verizon Fios "On Demand" (I was surprised to find when the credits began rolling that my eyes were stinging and my cheeks were wet with tears). However, as much as I loved and appreciated the movie, it was shown in the full-screen format, and I can't help but feel a bit robbed of my $4.95. Is the switch from wide-screen to full that big a deal? I see you talking about 70mms and Todd-AOs and Blue-Rays, and I don't really know what these terms mean, but thought I didn't need to. But "Frozen River" was so obviously cut off and cinematographically unfulfilled in the full screen, that I am wondering if I should maybe make my way to learning these things so I can guard myself against this unnatural alteration. I do know that a movie theater experience is unsurpassable, even if it is uneconomical; but it seems to me (an unknowledgeable movie-watcher) that a grievous sin is committed when whoever it is physically takes out a third of the screen. Why do they do this? Are all people distracted by the black bars that allow the widescreen on television sets so much that full-screenization must always be the standard procedure? *Sigh*. What I would do for my own private theater.

Ebert: Damn! The very least you can hope for is that Verizon is smart enough to know that viewers have no desire for a slice-and-diced chop job.

Could you send this to answerman@gmail.com with your full name and where you live, as I can use it in the Answer Man column?

I know that it has since gained a large cult following, but "Vertigo", a film shot in 70mm, was one of Hitchcock's least attended theatrical releases. Don't you think it would be great to show it at your Festival? I think I say that because it is my favorite movie and I'd love to see it theatrically, but I guess if we picked "overlooked" films in that way, we could easily make a case for films like "Citizen Kane", too.

Ebert: It is the format that is overlooked. "Vertigo" just went on my very short list for 2010.

Ebert: That's not a real good reason for not attending the Circle.

You're right. There's more to the story though which I had left out of my original posting.

The Circle closed as a first run theater back in the mid-1970's. Shortly afterwards it became an X rated theater, in which it continued doing so until about 1990. It then became a theater that screened movies from Mexico, catering to a very local crowd. I don't think it lasted like that for very long at all, and it sat empty for most of the 1990's.

Renovation began about four years ago, and now the theater's an active part of the theater scene in Tulsa once again. Sadly, the original portion of the theater that held the original screen-the one I remember watching movies on as a child-was damaged during renovations and ended up demolished. Movies today are shown on a smaller screen added in the building just to the south of the original theater.

As I don't get out to movies much anymore for a number of reasons, I just haven't yet been able to get to a movie at the Circle. There's no really good excuse, but that, in addition to the memory of how it was when I was a child, is the best I can come up with. BUT....hopefully, soon I'll go.

Their website by the way is: www.circlecinema.com

Oh, how quickly the human being forgets the wonders of storytelling magic. How quick is the adult to dismiss the child inside of himself. How quick the movie goers are to condemn blockbusters and shine a light on pretentious Indie-film dreck. There's nothing wrong with Indie-films, it’s just that they're so damn overrated. To me, the movies have always been about large scale, big egos and big spectacle. Call me crazy, but I believe it to be true. A movie like Juno may be a great film, whether by accident or intent but it can never replace the magical narrative force of a movie like Star Wars or Independence Day, Spider-Man or Ben-Hur.

Like a lot of people today, I myself have a huge HDTV with surround sound, Blu-Ray and the like. I know a guy who rented out an entire I-MAX theater for his daughter's birthday party so that he could show her "Monsters vs. Aliens" in 3-D no less; to her pleasant surprise I'm sure (daddy was the star of the house for a week after that). However, for all the home living room technology in the world, nothing will ever replace the big-time, blockbuster movie going experience. There is just something primal and eternal about a big-budget, big-event movie experience that demands to be witnessed on the large-projector in a dark room full of strangers. The atmosphere is intoxicating no matter what the circumstances. Until everyone has a big screen in their house, or until we give up movies for virtual reality; this will never go away.

There's just something about the abundant and sophisticated special effects of "Spider-Man" that speaks more volumes than any amount of pretentious cinematographic composition that a film student could conjure with his documentary about African children or the Holocaust. There is something eternal about the flow of a proficient technical production, done with an expensive crew and big stars. It is intangible and unbreakable. No siree, the movies were always meant to be spectacle first, writing second. Writing in the movies is purely a late 20th Century phenomenon. Visual storytelling and sensation, is and always will be the staple of visual art. Call me crazy but give me my Star Wars and Spider-Man and Ben-Hurs any day of the week. It's The Seventh Seal and Breathless that I can't stand.

At their core, I personally don't believe movies were ever really meant to be a stimulating mental exercise. For all their cunning, for all their artistic endeavor and advancement; in the end, they merely entertain. If you want deep thoughts, I think you've got to go to the public library and read literature. Sure, movies are a lot of fun; they can even make us think and feel. But that fine line between art and commerce has become so distorted during the past century that it seems people have lost sight of what that original charm entailed. You want my advice? If you want to cry and think, go see a play down the street. Movies are a children’s' medium and they are foremost a gateway into a place in the imagination. Of course, you have to be a big kid at heart to conjure up something as insane as a movie script. Just ask a guy like Steven Spielberg or George Lucas or Ron Howard. In their best moments, the movies are simply boys and girls with their toys. In the end, art it seems is merely a tool for drawing attention to oneself. When they are at their worst, movies can be a tedious exercise in obvious pretension. For all its snazzy effect, Goddard's Breathless might be one of those exercises. Wasn't it Scorsese that said movies like Breathless were always too hip?

If all of that wasn't enough, we are all just so, so smart aren't we? Despite ourselves not really being great storytellers, we have all become experts onto ourselves regarding the film industry or industry in general. You know the old saying: "Everyone's a critic." But honestly, at this point today it's quite ridiculous. Many people often make up their minds about a film before they even step into the theater. As a result we often become very cynical, thus not allowing the film experience to wash over us and take it all in. Of course, part of this is the fault of marketing.

We have to put up with these High School kids who try to make us buy a $10.00 box of Dibs Ice Cream just so we can get a miserable fold out poster of Watchmen (whom they, miraculously enough target to small children). I am always fascinated with how much a modern movie multiplex resembles a second rate daycare center. What we have today are not families who go the movies as a pleasant get together. We have a bunch of busy, cynical, tired and working adults who are taking their five year olds to see Watchmen just because they're too damn lazy to hire a baby sitter. It's fine taking your family out of the house, but must you see Watchmen? Why not see Race to Witch Mountain?

Suffice it to say, movie houses don't give a crap about which small kids sneak into an R-rated film with their parents. On the other end of the spectrum of cynicism you have your average moviegoers who criticize so-called "Young Males" or AKA: "Fan boys". Socially deficient cretins who spend their time mentally masturbating and going to see every movie under the sun while criticizing other people (the aforementioned groups). But in the end, who is providing most of the revenue for the film industry? Is it the families who don't really care about movies who get sucked into the advertising? Is it the lonely film goer fans and so-called fan boys or movie nerds who fill movie houses? Is it children, young adults, senior citizens?

Chances are if you're a reasonable person with some brains you'd realize that people don't really fit into any target categories. They are simply unique individuals with varied personalities. All make up the landscape of the entertainment target audience. Isn't it fun to see the movies with different people? I'd like to think so. The problem with all of this is this: The movie industry or the entertainment monster doesn't really care about YOU the individual. They care about the demographics: The Fan boys, the married couples, the children and the old people. As a result, Americana has been dumbed down and institutionalized to reach the chasms of every known focus group under the sun. Marketing has evolved onto itself into a sort of disfigured and misguided ballet of false ideals set to uncover some sort of niche of interest that simply doesn't exist. Not to mention the fact that moviegoing numbers decline each year; despite the fact that it's still the chosen entertainment vehicle over sports and amusement parks. Somehow, people always go.

I always laugh at those people who believe that "teenagers" or "children" ruin movies. In fact, it's stuck up and snotty adults that ruin the movie going experience. The movies are for everyone and there is a time and place for all sorts of moviegoers; but part of the problem of the growing decay of the romanticism of film (if you even want to call it that--maybe it never was) is that the present realities of today's world create this sort of negative environment where the sensibilities and behaviors of people clash to form some kind perverse environment that isn't always conducive to a pleasant public experience (at least at the cineplexes).

Maybe this doesn't exist, maybe that's the way it's always been. People have always been stupid and immature, people have always been jerks and boring hacks, people have never gotten along and people have never been able to shut the heck up for one second and simply enjoy the pleasant company of perfect strangers. But here's the amazing part: Are you ready for this?...All of that crap is merely a phenomenon of the time span preceding the screening of a film. Once that magical screen goes up people turn off their phones, they shut their mouths, put their egos on hold and remember to be human beings again. They begin to enjoy the company of one another. This to me, is the magic of storytelling and the magic of movies. The ability to make people accept their differences and simply listen and learn and shut up. Perhaps I'm all wrong about this. Maybe this sort of stuff doesn't really exist? It's something that we create to make ourselves feel miserable. Maybe human beings simply enjoy being pessimistic. It is, after all, human nature to doubt stuff like the healing power of art. Maybe deep down we realize that there's nothing inherently special about the cinemas; we've just succeeded so far into making ourselves believe that there is. That would be a momumental shame beyond belief. I for one, would like to think this false. My reasons: Overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The best stories emerge organically with their message, without any modulation for its creator. It is the observer of the art that creates this magic; not always just the artist themselves. Could a Complex/Nobel Prize/Playwright winning author have written a movie scene as powerful and kinetic as the rolling boulder in Raiders of the Lost Ark? I don't think so. He would have to play around with emotions. Films are not about emotions or thoughts, they run much deeper than that.

I watch Monsters v. Aliens in 3-D because I want to be thrilled. If I want to think I'll read Cormac McCarthy or Mark Twain.

Ebert: Yes, but did 3-D help? And were you thrilled?

In my childhood, we still had big movie theaters in my hometown. Now, it is the time of multiplex theater, and even biggest screen can hold little less than 200 seats per one. Anyway, they manage to do Jeonju international movie festival(I've heard David Gordon Green went there in 2005) with these screens and some auditoriums, and the festival will return this May.

The multiplex theater near my campus in Daejeon is a little better. They have 10 screens and 4 of them, about 300 seats and 24 seats per row for each, are quite large by my standard. I think it will be wonderful to see restored version of 'Baraka' or 'Woodstock' there if they have right equipments. However, that won't happen. It was near miracle that they showed "Let the Right One in"(with good Korean subtitle) before "Twilight" came.

There were many sad news for movie lovers like me. It was disheartening to see art movie theater near the multiplex theater was closed in 2007. It was small but I had good time with "The Lives of Others", "Bubble", and "El Topo". Meanwhile, distribution problem has become big issue for independent filmmakers even in South Korea. Sometimes they get big hits(recent one was small documentary about some old farmer and his dying 40-year-old cow) but the problem still exists.

These are the reasons I envy Ebertfest attendants. I will buy "Baraka" Blue-ray and will see it, but watching it on big screen with many people will be much, much better. I'm willing to watch small movies, but our distributers are also usually interested in blockbusters. "Frozen River", "Ballast", and "Chop Shop" were invited to local movie festivals last year and people sometimes talk about them("Chop Shop" is already called 'anti-Slumdog'). However, at this moment, there is no chance for me to see them and others Mr. Ebert mentioned.

Good luck with Ebertfest, Mr. Ebert and all of you who will be there. Probably I will never get the chance you have, but I think I can taste small part of it even with 21 inch LCD; "Frozen River" was effective to me this January.

Ebert: Well, you're seeing some good films, anyway. That's all anyone can hope.

Roger,
As a long time reader of your reviews, I usually track pretty solidly with you. Movies you recommend often become some of my favorites.

Last weekend I watched both Frozen River and Chop Shop and I've been nagged ever since by the fact that I loved Frozen River, but hated Chop Shop. I haven't been able to figure out why Chop Shop didn't connect for me (well, really I can't figure out why it connected so strongly to you and many others) and it makes me question my movie watching cred.

While the premise and locations were inherently interesting, I found myself growing annoyed and disinterested with the movie. Some of the things that annoyed me: difficult to understand much of the dialogue when the boy was speaking, the lack of any soundtrack (many seem to think this is a virtue, as if soundtracks are used only by lesser filmmakers as a form of manipulation), no real dramatic tension (obviously subjective), and I was bugged by the over use of shots that were composed as characters walking directly toward or away from the camera.

So you saw a movie that heralded the next great American director, and I saw a tedious mess. Is there no hope for me?

Wish I could make Ebertfest to get your full take on Chop Shop.

Reply to: Zeiram: Could a Complex/Nobel Prize/Playwright winning author have written a movie scene as powerful and kinetic as the rolling boulder in Raiders of the Lost Ark? I don't think so. He would have to play around with emotions. Films are not about emotions or thoughts, they run much deeper than that.

The best films are all about emotions.

First, some definitions from various dictionaries. Fear is an emotion. A fealing of anxiety caused by the presence of danger. Panic is sudden frantic fear, often groundless.

Emotion is a mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort. Emotions are attributions of bodily states; for example, a stimulus arouses fear because it raises heart-rate.

Love and arousal are wonderful emotions, but they aren't the only ones. They aren't the most powerful ones. They aren't the ones that compel us to cover our eyes and peek through our fingers at the screen.

One problem with movies set in modern-day America is that the Fear Factor is missing. Larry Kasdan, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg created a long, tension-filled sequence that built up the sense of danger, in order to make that boulder seem terrifying, but it was in Peru in the 1930's. The opening of "Saving Private Ryan," where Tom Hanks witnesses the soldiers next to him being killed by machine gun fire and explosions, was an emotional experience.

Reply to: Zeiram: the wonders of storytelling magic. How quick is the adult to dismiss the child inside of himself. To me, the movies have always been about large scale, big egos and big spectacle. A movie like Juno can never replace the magical narrative force of a movie like Star Wars or Independence Day, Spider-Man or Ben-Hur.

The goal is to find a way to raise the audience's heart rate, not for a moment, but for long enough to create a catharsis. A sense of relief when it's over. So you grab your chest and sigh, "I'm glad that's over. Couldn't have taken much more." That's the emotional graph of "Raiders." The hero is placed in mortal danger, what they call a cliff-hanger. He escapes and we feel relief. It happens again, and again, and each time the danger escalates. At the end, the hero and heroine are tied to a post while the Nazis attempt to use the Ark to talk to God. George and Steven often save "religion" for the final cliff-hanger, because it elevates conflict to a different level.

When you sell tickets with the title "Monsters vs. Aliens," the audience should have expectations of an extreme emotional experience. Monsters should be scary. Add some aliens, and it should be REALLY scary.

(2) Several people have commented about the size of their TV sets. Next Christmas, get a projector. We've been promised a new generation with lasers instead of bulbs, possibly less than a year away. Even the cheapest home theater in a basement is more fun than a plasma screen.

What's the scariest movie ever shown at Ebertfest?

Scariest movie to ever appear at Ebertfest? Easy--Henry Jaglom's "Deja Vu"

A very good lineup and I can't wait to be there. I would also like to second the nomination of "Vertigo" as well

Ebert: You get scared in a sort of looking-glass way, I take it.

I third the nomination of "Vertigo" for the 70mm treatment. Remember when 'Vertigo was a re-released in the fall of 1996? I was thirteen at the time and smitten with film. Smitten, decapitated by the beauty of film, by the sheer lush tangibility of light and sound on a flickering screen. I was and remain a a movie geek, a devotee, a devourer of anecdotes and magazines and scripts and how-tos and memoirs and biographies and anything-everything related to film (including, i might add, a dog-eared copy of Roger Ebert's Video Companion circa 1994 -- an X-Mas present at the age of 11 that I still credit with first teaching me the value of critical thinking; as in, why was The Karate Kid so good, but Karate Kid III so bad? A serious question to my 11-yr old mind, answered satisfactorily in Mr. Ebert's reviews.)

My mom's a badass. She passed her love of film down to me, having grown up an only child and having sought refuge in cinema's alternate reality. She drove me in all my annoying pimply adolescence an hour north from Salem to Portland, OR, to see "Vertigo" projected in 70 mm at the Broadway Theater downtown. But when we arrived to Broadway the gum-chewing box-offix lady informed us the show was delayed. Five hours. The testy 70mm projector had broken down. They had to import a piece of equipment from the other side of town.

I thought that was the end of my dream of seeing the Master's "Vertigo" in all its visual glory. Fortunately, my mom's as much a movie geek as myself. Her favorite movie? Lawrence of Arabia. When she was 10 or 11 she saw it projected in 70 mm in Champaign (I'll have to ask her which movie palace, specifically) where she grew up and went to college at UICU. She saw a matinee, walked around the block, and bought a ticket for the next showing. So she's a woman who knows.

Instead of driving the hour back to dreary Salem, she took me to a cafe and bought me a hot chocolate and a piece of cake. Killing time, we made a pilgrimage to Powell's, the mecca of bookstores, an island of books to get marooned on. We walked downtown. Then she took me back to Broadway to see "Vertigo."

I will never forget the experience of seeing this cinematic masterpiece projected in 70mm. The image was so pristine, so beautiful, so ... real? tangible? it's hard to describe, but it seared itself onto my memory. The whole movie became a stylized tone poem, a hallucinatory dream of a nightmare. The scene in Elaine's when Jimmy Stewart can barely look at Kim Novak as Madeleine, he's so hooked ... Hermann's majestic soundtrack swells and when Novak steps into profile I could see every strand of hair on her blonde head. The rich blood red of the b.g. wallpaper JUMPED out of the screen, like you could caress it. It was transporting, hypnotic. In that moment, I absolutely shared in Scotty's obsession. That was Hitch's intention, I'd bet.

As films increasingly rely on digital effects and computer-generated "majesty," the authentic glory of sumptuous movies like Vertigo, The Fall, and Branagh's insanely ambitious Hamlet should be celebrated. Thank you Ebertfest.

And thanks, Mom, for driving me to Vertigo. You're a badass. And not just because you beat Street of Rage II on Sega Genesis :)

Ebert: She probably saw it at the Virginia.

I saw it in 70mm at the 1996 Chicago Film Festival, and interviewed Kim Novak onstage afterward. She confessed she had not seen it since the premiere. "It wasn't so bad, was it? Everyone always seemed to consider it a failure."

Dear Anna, you are so lucky to live in a place where social pressure works in a good way. Here, cell phones still ocassionally ring while the movie plays; and they ring very loud. The last I encountered this was in Valkyrie. During one of its solemn moments, a funny ringtone suddenly ripped the air, destroying the mood. What's more, some of these people answer the disruptive call and talk business right there in the middle of the movie. Some just don't have the grace to turn off their gadgets, or set the volume to low (or vibrate).

Of course, people are entitled to their emergency calls; but they should temporarily vacate their seats and go outside if they wish to continue the conversation.

Roger,

I was at HAL's birthday party. 2001 on the Virginia's screen was a revelation. The Virginia is a great place to see a movie and to attend a wedding. A friend of mine got married on the immense stage of the Virginia.

The public library where I work bought a site license to show films this year. Our first film, Citizen Kane drew 27 people. Duck Soup, with the Three Stooges' Men in Black drew 33. Nosferatu on Friday 13th drew 32. 32 people came out to see an 88 year old German Silent Film on a Friday night. I am amazed how people seem to be starved for film, even if it's a DVD projected with an LCD projector. This is a small town in the Northern Rockies. People get it. Next up is Branaugh's Much Ado About Nothing. How many people will show up?

Ebert: People love to see films together. Howie Movshovitz, the critic and programmer from Boulder, has toured small towns in Colorado with a 16mm projector and prints of silents and classics. Tells me about a similiar reaction.

You've inspired me here. I live within reasonable driving distance of Urbana and love films.

So, I will have to find my way to the standby line for at least one of these films this year. I'll spend some time on the Ebertfest website and do some planning. Looking forward to the adventure.

Techically speaking, "Vertigo" was not filmed in 70mm, but in VistaVision, a high-resolution 35mm film format. It was presented in 70mm for its restoration. I remember seeing it for the first time on a 19" black and white television--with commercials--when I was a young teen, and it was affecting even in that lowly format. (It was probably shown on NBC's "Saturday Night at the Movies") But it was great to see the restored version at the theater some thirty years later, in color and in the correct aspect ratio.

Don't forget about your public library for non-mainstream films. My public library collects many of these and I have seen many recent "art" films on DVD that I have missed at the theater. Just last week I checked out "The Lives of Others", a film I didn't think I would like. But it was a superb film that I am still thinking about, thanks to the public library.

Ebert: I stand corrected. Still, if we can get a 70mm print, that'll be good enough for Ebertfest.

Ebertfest is always a highlight of the year in Champaign-Urbana, and we are lucky to have such an opportunity. Can't wait for the presentation of "Woodstock" on opening night.

Unfortunately, one of Roger's favorite theatres in Champaign will be closing its doors by the end of the year. The Art is in its final months of operation due to a massive spike in expected rent.

A local columnist wrote a spoof of it today:

http://www.smilepolitely.com/arts/the_art_is_closing_finally/

Thank goodness we still have The Virginia, and thanks to Roger for helping make that a reality. I only wish we could save the Art for films as well.

Roger,

I ended up watching the DVD release of "Let the Right One In" last night (it kept staring at me, demanding to be seen). Aside from your disclosure (as well as Jim Emerson's) of the lackluster treatment of the subtitles, I went into the viewing open-minded having not seen the theatrical release. Clearly, some of the translation was poor but I found myself barely reading the subtitles anyway as the film was so absorbing! Hopefully, I will get a chance to see the 'corrected' version soon.

Also last night, I had my second viewing (in 2 days) of "Synecdoche NY" and was even more impressed with the film! You were right to say that history will prove your assertion that this is a masterpiece. I find it troubling that so many people slammed it for its audacity and daring (namely Ben Lyons of your old "At The Movies" called it the second worst film of 2008). Granted, its not the most accessible film for general audiences but shouldn't film critics be more than a "general audience"? Why punish a film for trying to be something more than mere entertainment?

With these kinds of questions swirling around my head all of the time, its no wonder I have so many sleepless nights...

Regards,
Chris Ortman

I so wish to make it to an Ebertfest some year. Alas, not this year. But soon. I hope.

I hope that Frozen River finds a bigger audience. Now that a year has gone by, it's interesting to look back at the films that premiered in 2008 at Sundance. What an amazing crop of films -- much as Sundance seems to be taking a hit in terms of its industry cache, and even the punch line on some jokes, it really does seem to turn up some amazing stuff. Trouble the Water, Frozen River, and Man on Wire all came out of that festival.

More great films this year at Sundance, but not many deals. The audience award documentary ("the Cove") which played to standing ovations every time it screened, is still in search of distribution. Many of the other award winners -- Five Minutes of Heaven, Afghan Star, Sin Nombre -- are not going to be seen very widely. But maybe there is hope -- the grand jury prize winner at Sundance this year, which may be the most commercially unviable film ever made, seems to have been picked up (although I read there is a fight over it's distribution).

Any way, just a long winded way of saying that even Sundance seems to be the end of the line for an awful lot of great movies. Others plucked out of obscurity by Ebertfest didn't even get that chance. Kudos to Ebertfest for doing its part to try to get some of the amazing movies out there some more attention.

Add me to the list of people who rank Vertigo as their all-time favorite film. I missed it at the Chicago Film Festival in 96, but there was a theater in Chicago that showed several Hitchcock films in 98 (or thereabouts), and I had a chance to see it (and several others) on the big screen then. Unfortunately I can't remember which theater it was, but they ran each film for a week or two over the course of a summer, and managed to screen most of his best works during that time. It was a great experience, and I'd love the chance to repeat it at a future Ebertfest!

Unfortunately, after over a decade of living in C-U and attending Ebertfests (including the first one!), I no longer live in the area, but plan to make it an annual trip starting next year. (The only reason I'm not doing it this year is because I'll be visiting the Virginia in July instead of April... for my wedding!)

One thing I have to question, though, is your population estimate... I believe Champaign proper has about 75,000 people, and Urbana around 40,000. The entirety of Champaign County and surrounding areas may add up to close to 250,000, but I think that's a bit of a stretch. Not that this diminishes the tragedy that would be the closing of the Art in any way, of course.

Ebert: Yeah, that figure includes the metro area (Champaign, Ford and Piatt counties).

Roger,
I have noticed that in most cases, the films released from January through April tend to be the sloppy leftovers of Hollywood filmmaking. I depend on your reviews to help me sort through the crap and hopefully find something worth my time and money. Hollywood would rather release 10 blockbusters in May than release a few early, which seems counter-intuitive to me because most people can't see all 10 movies in May and a lot of expensive films can lose money because of the competition. But if they won't release the BIG ONES until May, why don't more studios release some of these independent films in this slower season? With a little marketing they might draw enough people to have a hit, and in the least, I may check out a positive review of an independent film, and actually find it in a theatre. It seems there would be money in that, and less risk because of low production costs.

Ebert: The trick is to live in a place with theaters that show indie films.

rated site this blogs.suntimes.com excellent to see you have what I am actually looking for here and this this post is exactly what I am interested in. I shall be pleased to become a regular visitor :)

Thanks, Roger, for another great festival! I liked all 12 movies this time. "Woodstock" was my favorite, followed by "Frozen River" and "Sita Sings the Blues".

It was interesting to see that you're developing a bit of a vocabulary for pantomime communication. That enhanced your presence at the introductions. As a computer geek, I'm thinking there must be a less clumsy user interface for you to play your computer voice. It seemed like you had to do a ridiculous amount of fiddling.

Suggestions for next year: you should look at those films from your Great Movies list that aren't readily available -- say, from Netflix. I've been working through the list and have seen over half of your Great Movies at this point. By this time next year I hope to have it down to those hard ones. I'm sure there are others like me, and we'd be grateful for the chance to see "Johnny Guitar", or "Pixote", or "Santa Sangre". or "Chimes at Midnight", or "A Tale Of Winter".

Not sure whether to post here or in your blog entry about the festival....who was the "perhaps surprise guest" after the screening of Woodstock?

Ebert: Jocko Marcellino, co-founder of Sha Na Na.

Thanks.

I was watching the Directors Cut of Woodstock and my 18-year old son was walking through the room....he stopped for a few minutes, then sat down, then watched it with me.

What a great movie.

I grew up outside Urbana in the late 70's. I remember watching you and Gene Siskel reviewing The Empire strikes back on Sneak Previews on WILL channel 12 (we always watched PBS all day Saturday). That night as a family, we experianced the movie at the Virginia. I was 3 years old. (my first movie other than on TV) My dad always talked about how the big old movie palaces were just like the one shown on the Sneak Previews intro. (I've always loved that intro, with the original music) When we went to the Virginia, I realized, this was it!!! I went to many movies in most of the places you've mentioned in this post. Virginia was best. I loved staring up at the huge round light on the ceiling, I thought it looked like a space ship!! Also saw Star Trek: Wrath of Khan and A View to a Kill at the Virginia. Have fun at Cannes!!!

As your long-time admirer, it is really disheartening to hear you praise "Slumdog Millionaire". I think it is a semi-racist, classist and derivative fairy tale that was adopted by a herd mentality of film criticism. I wouldn't like to think you had sunk to that level.

Dear Roger,

My birthday is in September but my present is to go to Ebertfest 2010. I will be fifteen by then, so if I am accompanied by an adult would I be allowed to see all the films? Also, what Urbana hotels do you reccomend? Where can I buy passes in advance? Thank you, and I hope I see you in 2010!

Sincerely,
Jackson

Ebert: You can get in. If you can't, tell 'em we've corresponded on my blog. I'll send you a note if necessary. Advance sales info it at www.ebertfest.com. Passes go fast. Hotels? They have info there. Hotel rates are lower than in a big city. Use MapQuest and try to get near the Virginia Theater.