SIFF 2010 - The Countdown Begins...

The 36th Annual Seattle International Film Festival is almost upon us.  The opening night film for May 20th has been announced, and the winner is The Extra Man.  It stars Kevin Kline and at first blush sounds like a relatively solid choice.  The 1st film of the festival doesn't tend to be my favorite for the year's event likely due to it's need to appeal to a very broad audience (and fill the largest venue of the fest).  Hopefully it'll be towards the top of my list of recent opening night choices that include last year's In the Loop and the more controversial but still pretty awesome (to me) Me and You and Everyone We Know. Though, honestly as long as it's not a repeat of Battle in Seattle I'll be a happy man (and yes I do forgive SIFF for that as regardless of its quality it must have been irresistible as an opening film).  Here's the description straight off the SIFF web page

"Ever-so-proper Louis Ives (Paul Dano) is a lonely dreamer who imagines himself the protagonist of a modern F. Scott Fitzgerald novel. He moves to Manhattan to pursue a writing career and rents a room in the tiny Manhattan apartment of playwright Henry Harrison, a wildly eccentric social entrepreneur (Kevin Kline) who happens to work evenings as an “extra man”—an escort for wealthy widows. The unexpected bond of the two men creates the hilarious heart of the film; its pathos comes from their realization that within the other’s idealistic fantasy persona lurks their own litany of insecurities."

Looks like it's screened at Sundance and will be the opening film at the Independent Film Festival of Boston this year.  Both of which are good signs.  OK - just because I met the folks from IFFBoston at SXSW and they had some good recommendations there isn't gold, but it's got to mean something...

Also ran across what appears to be a SIFF 2010 promotional trailer.  It's directly below for your viewing pleasure.  If you don't love it now, don't worry - hopefully it'll grow on you after 50+ viewings. ;-)  Judging from the end it appears that this year's tagline may be "Inside Out - Go Inside Film, Get Outside Yourself."  Sounds better than "New!" at least. :-) 



Final bit of SIFF 2010 news - word on the street is that press screenings begin May 3rd - which is a great benefit to try to take advantage of if you've purchased a full series pass.  If you haven't - please ask yourself why not?

Mother (South Korea)

After a round on the festival circuit Mother the latest effort from Joon-ho Bong director (and co-writer) of The Host is starting to arrive in theaters.  Mother is a completely different sort of film than The Host but equally worthy of your attention.  It's a complex film that takes the patient viewer on a involved but often exciting ride.  The film had me wondering what its ultimate destination was right up until the end, and while I'm pretty confident I understand where it left us off there's still a decent amount to discuss post screening.

The two main characters are a mother and her adult son named Yoon Do-joon.  The son clearly has a mental disability of some kind though leading a happy-go-lucky existence most of the time.  He's slow on the uptake, childlike in some of his interactions, and perhaps most importantly has limited memory retention much of the time.  His mother works in a medicinal herb shop while practicing acupuncture without a license for extra money.  She's a single mother and is extremely protective (and constantly worried, often with good reason) about her son.  His closest friend may not be a fantastic influence on him.  When he's not getting into trouble with his friend Yoon's clear desire for female companionship can also cause some tension with those around him.  But one's impression is that at heart Yoon is a good guy.

When a village girl is found dead (the police can't even remember the last time they dealt with a murder) the case is closed quickly with as Yoon the prime suspect.  While there's clear circumstantial evidence found at the scene the police also take advantage of his limitations to elicit a confession (of sorts).  His mother is outraged clear in the belief that her son is being railroaded.  Limited on resources she begins her own investigation based on parental love, perseverance, and it appears knowledge gleaned from crime scene investigation shows.  The film switches from family drama to noir thriller territory as she begins to unravel the mystery.  Most of the acting burden is carried by the mother (Hye-ja Kim) and the film's strength is largely her achievement.  If not believably able to carry the wide range required of this role the movie would have been a much lesser work.  Thankfully she handles all that's required and then some turning in a performance that makes the film work.

Whenever I write about a film that had me edging forward in my seat the entire time I sooooo want to talk about the details, the tradeoffs, and my perceived motivations of the characters.  But I'll bite my tongue (perhaps bite my hand makes more sense in this context) leaving you free to discover the film's "joys" spoiler free.  I will say though that even without a lot of words Mother gives everything a sense of depth and back-story that made me feel as though I was watching real people.  What eventually transpires feels unforced, and while there are twists and turns the things that lead up to each key part in the story are fairly disclosed to the audience.  Meaning there's not a single cheap thrill in the end that seems wrong within the movie's universe.  Plus even if someone did tell you the story in depth I think it's still well produced enough to be worth seeing.  That said - I'm not the guy who's going to not quite ruin it for you.

So in short - try to catch this when you can.  The storyline itself isn't completely new stuff - but the way it's told and the connected look of the film is worth checking out.

Clash of the Titans (3D - sort of)

Before I go into runaway typing mode let me start by summarizing my thoughts on the film.  If you just want to go somewhere and forget the universe AND you have a relatively low bar for acceptable dialog then the sound and fury of this film will likely prove at least mildly satisfying.  I've seen far worse - though it's not great, never rising to the level of fun that the trailer made me briefly hope for.  If you're looking for a case study (alongside Alice in Wonderland) why 3D isn't necessarily an improvement on 2D, especially if the effect is added in post-production this will also give you valuable ammunition.  But if you're looking to be blown away by an action film that pulls you against your will along for the ride then I wouldn't make this your first stop (especially as you may begrudge them the extra $3 for the dimensional upgrade).  I'd go so far as to hazard a guess that seeing Clash in 2D might be the best way to go.  Can't be sure as I haven't watched seen it that way and sitting through it again anytime soon is beyond my level of curiosity. 

Some of the complaints below aren't solely the fault of the writers - if you're sticking with the existing mythology you have to play the hand you're dealt to a certain degree.  One tends to forget that the deities of Greek mythology were some pretty crazy mother-fuckers.  I didn't mean that quite as literally as it came out, and am now realizing that didn't tend to be the gods themselves.  But if you lived in a world where you had to worry about Zeus disguising himself as you and essentially raping your wife to father his son you might have some misplaced love and aggression issues to sort out too.  I don't think the makers (perhaps re-makers is more accurate) of the classic Clash of the Titans (watched in wood paneled dens everywhere) intended me to concentrate just so closely as to how many women are described (not shown) as having been taken against their will by a Greek god.  And there were moments where I was distracted from such overly critical analysis by well executed spectacle.  But there is definitely more time than there should be to consider plot holes (how exactly did the people of Argus figure out Perseus is a demi-god?), ponder as to why they felt the need to convert the film to 3D post shooting, and count up the number of people at best tricked into fathering Zeus's children.  And usually not in the sort of cute as long as you don't think about it too much Barney Stinson way.  This distrust of Zeus would have been fine, except that accepting the arc of the story as presented requires you to be sympathetic to him, at least a bit.  That was hard for me given the backstory.

Sorry, sorry - the movie, you probably want to know more about the movie.  First I should admit that while I'm pretty confident I've seen the original film at least a couple of times by now my memory is pretty foggy on the details.  I remember a mechanical owl and stop motion effects that even as a young boy required an effort to suspend disbelief enough not to point and chuckle throughout.  Sadly that means I can't really compare the two films point by point.  But after augmenting my memory via the internet I get the impression the set pieces of the original film were likely kept in place while the motivations of the characters driving the "plot" was significantly altered.

At the beginning of this film we learn quickly that Perseus is found floating in essentially a casket along with his deceased birth mother by his adoptive father (a fisherman) who raises the boy as his own.  We also get a quick lesson on Greek mythology wherein the current gods (Zeus, Hades, Poseidon) wrested control from the Titans after which Zeus created man.  The current administration gains their power and immortality from the prayers of the people (see - even the non vampire movies now have vampires. Interestingly enough the gods also sparkle).  But we're told that humanity is fed up with the gods and has begun to rebel against them.  Which doesn't quite seem 100% unreasonable what with the aforementioned unapproved taking of their women (amongst other grievances I suspect).  These rebellions are both weakening the gods and seriously pissing them off.  During a scene that eerily reminded my of Xanadu minus the humor Hades convinces Zeus to let him kick a little bit of ass to get the kids back in line.  Somewhere around here in the story Hades attacks a group of uppity soldiers killing Perseus's family as collateral damage.  Perseus ends up in Argos which coincidentally is the city Hades chooses to implement his new pray or die strategy with.  They're given an ultimatum to either ship up and sacrifice their princess as a down payment to the gods or Hades will unleash the Kraken on them.  Said Kraken is a never quite fully viewed but very intimidating beast that instills more fear in the population of Argos than just a run of the mill series of lightening bolts raining down from the heavens.  Newly discovered to be a demi-god Perseus is then sent off on a quest to find a way to defeat the Kraken.  At which point lots of adventuring ensues.  I'll spare you the details lest I ruin it for you.  Some of the adventuring works, some of it doesn't.  I will say that except for one or two scenes there's not a lot of positive tension generated - perhaps because Perseus always seems a tad bored.  Yet also very angry - a hard balance to pull off. 

Perseus is played by Sam Worthington who delivers the same sort of vaguely hollowed out performance that I remember from Avatar.  As is the case here there I'm not entirely convinced he was given that much to work with.  The Perseus character is almost dragged along for the ride.  First by his family, then by the soldiers he meets, then the people of Argos, occasionally a random guardian angel/potential girlfriend, and ultimately a l by his father Zeus.  Perhaps I'm old fashioned - but at the end the kinder, gentler Zeus is hard to reconcile with the crush the people and serial sex offender Zeus.  A fair amount of the dialog was pretty stilted (I actually laughed out loud a few times), and there's a not thoroughly explained love interest thrown in for good measure.  Everyone involved seems to try and make the best of it, and the overall action sequences were mostly reasonable.  So it's more underwhelming than really bad.  On the right day I'd probably call it somewhat decent.

Poking around the 'net one finds more than a few complaints about the 3D.  Personally I thought it was significantly less odd looking than that of Alice in Wonderland (which drove me to distraction).  But still strongly suspect it looks better in it's originally intended 2D.  Both films had the third dimension effect added after the fact vs. being shot directly in 3D.  Creating a film from the ground up in 3D basically means shooting with two cameras to directly capture the imagery from alternate views that when presented onscreen can present the illusion of the depth.  Properly wielded as in Avatar or some nature films I've seen the impact transcends being a mere novelty and adds something to the experience.  Alternatively, a film shot with a single camera can be digitally manipulated after the fact to attempt to mimic the data captured naturally by the second offset camera.  I'm sure like anything else this post-processing can be done to better or worse effect.  But in the two films I've seen it's far from a seamless result.  These conversions have a very noticeable layered look that gives the distinct impression that people are 2D cutouts moving through space vs. objects in a rich three-dimensional environment.  All in all when the film is shot in 2D by a competent director my current conclusion is that it's better to see it as intended vs. post "improvement."  Personally I think good film is inherently immersive - so if you're not going to build the film from the ground up in 3D please just don't make it worse by post production games.

I feel rather odd comparing this film less than favorably to Percy Jackson and the Olympians (even if I did already contrast it with Xanadu).  That said, in terms of popcorn entertainment I think I was actually more into Percy. Though it's possible that had more to due with disbelief and a fetching actress than actual quality.  You have been warned - sort of...

Oh, and in case you're wondering there are no actual Titans clashing during this film best I can tell.  So you could call the whole thing a sham at that level alone. ;-) 



Update (4/1): If you'd like to get a sense of the differences between the new film and old you'll definitely want to check out the more comprehensive criticism offered by Amie Simon at Three Imaginary Girls.

Sidenote:
Having seen this film on the first night of Passover I went in inspired to come out drawing an elaborate analogy between this film and the Exodus story of the holiday at hand.  One at least as thought provoking as Quentin's rant about Top Gun being a metaphor for homosexuality.  Sadly, I have not achieved that goal yet notwithstanding assistance from a Twitter friend who clearly called out the Kraken as representing the ten plagues combined.  Hopefully, I'll be back later with the final result - but if you have any ideas feel free to pass them along in the comments or email.

SXSW Film - Possibly the best reason to go to Texas

So much to do at SXSW and so little time to write about it. I'm going to be catching up as much as I can with the films. Thankfully (or sadly) not many are coming soon to a theater near you. Meaning I have a bit of time to summarize each one. Normally I focus more on the films and less on the experience of attending a festival. But having been overwhelmed (in a good way) by SXSW I was thinking it might be helpful for others thinking to attend in the future if I wrote a post or two on how to grok "south-by." It seems silly at some level because this info is really for 2011 attendees I still decided to try and get this all down while it's fresh on my mind.

SXSW is really three big festivals in one - or depending how you choose to play it, one big party. The three components are Film, Music, and Interactive. Interactive meaning web/new-media stuff.  I attended for Film - so in the "write what you vaguely know" I'm only going to talk about Film. All I can really say about Music is that there are apparently more attendees in that group than there are residents of many countries and they are distinctive in their ability to be much hipper and/or greasy than the Film/Interactive folks.  Interactive seems to be what I'd expected.  Interesting folks, some silly seeming companies (how many bar code plays do we really need?) and a vibe that reminds me of reading Wired Magazine.  I'm not entirely sure if that's a compliment or a dig in case you're wondering.

The Basics
First thing to know about SXSW Film is that you're buying a "badge", not a "pass."  Depending on how much you want to spend you can add on other festival components. I just went with Film only - and didn't really have any time for anything else so that seems like it was a wise choice. Prices escalate with delay so once you're sure you're going you'll want to buy. Film badges get you into everything until capacity is hit in a first come, first served basis. As opposed to other fests there doesn't seem to be a super-elite (read expensive) badge that jumps the line. In that way things are super democratic. "Passes" only are available locally in Austin and allow folks entry into screenings only once all badge holders are seated, IF there is still room. Not surprisingly that can be a problem. For what it buys you SXSW Film badges are very affordable.  If you're traveling all the way to Austin just spend the money on a badge.  Even if you live there it seems that given the value of your time buying a badge early is the way to go vs. a pass if you can possibly afford it.

Films leaned more towards English language (but mostly indy) than other festivals I've attended (with the possible exception of Telluride).  There's a midnight "Taste of Fantastic Fest" for genre fare and a good amount of music related films in the mix (presumably for crossover with the Music conference).  The shorts packages were particularly good having a high ratio of strong efforts in the mix.  It does pay to do your research ahead of time to maximize the chances of seeing something great.  That's one area I wish I'd concentrated a bit more as it took some time for me to lock in on some of the better films having started with some just OK ones.  Still I had a fabulous time and rarely saw anything I'd call "bad."

Length of Festival / When to Go
This year at least films screened the entire time SXSW was operating (March 12-20th). Officially the awards are at the half way point - but the movie screenings continue all the way through. So by my math that means the festival is nine days long. Folks do start to clear out once Music starts - but that just means it's easier to get into things. Though there may be less folks available for Q&A's. My advice - if you can afford it stay as long as you can.  You don't really need to get there the day before (in 2010 the 11th) but films start in the early evening so don't fly in late on the first day if you can help it.  With a little rushing I landed at 4 and was able to get to my hotel, drop my bags, pick up my pass and get in line for a 7pm film without much difficulty.  That's cutting it close but a few hours earlier would have been perfect.  I think you can save your hotel dollars by not forcing yourself in a night early.  But that would give you more time to explore Austin - so as always pluses and minuses...

Getting There

Fly to Austin - that's basically it.  There's one airport and as long as you stay roughly near the downtown core you absolutely do not need (nor want) a car.  The SXSW website had a great guide to where each hotel was (and pre-negotiated prices).  I stayed at the Holiday Inn Town Lake.  Town Lake hotels appear to be a bit cheaper as they're somewhat outside the city core.  It was a pleasant 20 minute walk in the mornings so I think the cost savings were worth it.  If money wasn't an object I probably would stay downtown just for the sake of convenience.  Cabs are pretty cheap though in Austin so getting back from downtown at night (you likely won't want to walk at 2 AM) still makes the Town Lake or other outlier hotels a good deal.  Weather was very nice my entire stay (save one day with rain) - but I've been told that March is pretty variable so you can't count on that.

Venues
As this was my first trip to SXSW and I only got to three of the venues I can't really paint a complete picture of what's best.  But I'll summarize what I experienced.

The largest venue is the Paramount Theater.  It's a huge old fashioned performance space with an extended balcony area (only opened when capacity requires it).  If you want to be sure you get into a film the Paramount is usually a safe choice.  Even lines that appear incredibly daunting can still leave you with a good seat.  The bottom floor has an incline but not a huge one.  Given that I tended to enjoy aisle seats on the left or right section as I worried about sightlines in the center should someone tall be in front of me.  Even from the back of the orchestra I had a clear view of the screen.  I also attended one screening from the balcony.  Some of the chairs have very little legroom so you'll need to poke around.  But I think most folks should be able to find many seats they'll find satisfactory.  Main takeaway - The Paramount is huge and that makes it your best bet for not being shut out.

While the Paramount is huge stately theater, it'll look familiar to everyone.  The big difference in screening spaces at SXSW is definitely brought by the Alamo theater chain.  There are two Alamo's in use by the festival.  First is the Alamo Drafthouse Ritz in the downtown area, easily walkable from the convention center and all core venues.  Then there's the Alamo Drafthouse S. Lamar it's very similar to the Ritz with two exceptions.  First, it's outside the downtown area and is not walkable (though a cab is reasonable and for much of the festival there's a free shuttle).  Second, the theaters in use at the Llamar location are bigger meaning it's less likely you'll get shut out.  The main thing about the Alamo venues is that they're combined bar/restaurants and movie theaters.  While you get a great view due to the sharp rise of the theater you're also seated in front of a long narrow table spanning each row.  The menu is pretty broad and everything I tried was quite tasty.  It's particularly hard to resist the $5 Milkshakes (yes, everything is named with a movie reference of some sort).  They also serve alcohol if you feel the film you're watching may require chemical assistance for you to fully enjoy it.  It leads to some odd moments, "hey - am I actually eating a salad during a movie?" but I totally loved it.  And for a festival it's perfect as it's the only one where I haven't felt the need to choose between being hungry and seeing a movie.  The menu has you covered from breakfast to a late night snack (and delicious hard pear cider).  For the traditionalists there's of course popcorn with real butter.  While having the food is great by itself the layout brings a secondary benefit.  To ensure that servers can get in and out there's a small spacing between each row of seats/tables.  This makes it particularly easy to slip in and out even if you're seated in the middle of the theater.  Normally at festivals I try to sit on the ends to enable me to get in and out quickly as desired.  But at the Alamo I didn't feel the need to make that sacrifice.  So saw plenty of films dead center which was a nice change.  I even saw one film from the first row and had a good time.  It was a particularly good film, but even if it isn't you can always order a peanut butter milkshake to salve your soul.  If you haven't gotten the message - I LOVE the Alamo theaters.  Please open one (or ten) in Seattle.  And yes, I'm aware of some of our local choices in the same vein and I'm trying to get to them all when I can.

Almost forgot.  The Alamo Ritz has one theater wher the last row has two (maybe three) big ovestuffed leather couches.  If I recall correctly one was a two person and one three or so seats.  Didn't try them - but seemed perfect for a change of pace.

There were three other venues used by SXSW this year, The G-Tech Theater (in the Austin Convention Center),The Hideout, and the Carver Museum.  Sadly I didn't get to any of them so I can't offer any real commentary on their pros/cons.

Film Entry

Many things about SXSW Film are as you expect if you've been to another festival. Pick the films you'd like to see. Show up early and wait on line. Be sure you're on the badge holder line (there are separate ones for pass holders and ticket buyers). When the time comes they let badge holders in until the place is full and then others. It pays to know the size of your venue (staff will happily let you know) to judge if you're getting in. Most of the time you will unless it's one of the smaller theaters, you showed up too late (45 minutes usually did the trick though) or a lot of seats were reserved for the film makers and/or press (which seemed unusual). The festival does not have back to back re-entry into the same theater. Meaning once you've seen a film you've got to clear out and join the existing queue to re-enter. It's probably fairer and more transparent, but it really sucks if you want to catch something right after something as if there's a long line you're going to the end of it. Bottom line - SXSW makes you really think hard about each choice as it often means missing something else, even if the films don't overlap. Adding to the problem is that there's not a lot of time between the sessions so the problem I described seems to come up pretty frequently.


They also offered jump the line passes for folks willing to queue up in the morning at the convention center.  These express passes (you could get two per day per badge) didn't guarantee entry but they put you at the front of the line as long as you arrived before people were seated.  At the Alamo theaters this wasn't always a huge help if you were rushing from somewhere else due to their policy to seat folks earlier than other venues.  Still, it's a nice thing to have if you can grab one in the morning.  As you'd expect a limited number are given out to each film.  Once the Music sessions start though the film express passes end.


While you're waiting on line make sure to talk to the people around you.  Most film fest veterans know this - but it's a particularly good crowd for chatting with in Austin. I had great discussions with folks ranging from the actress and her father from one of the award winning films, programmers from other festivals (from Boston to London) other bloggers, prosecutors on holiday from Vegas to members of the military.  You are missing at least half of the fun if you don't force yourself to talk with at least one random screening per film. 

Panels
There's a significant concentration of industry folks at SXSW and that leads to things other than films.  There are a large variety of panel discussions, mentoring sessions, etc. for you to take advantage of.  They range from technical to longer form discussions with actors and/or directors.  I only attended one with Michel Gondry and was very happy with the quality.  Next time I'd like to try some more - but the films are such a strong lure. :-)

Other distractions
One of the things that made the SXSW experience truly different for me vs. other festivals was the incredible number of distractions that exist to keep you from actually getting to a movie (aka free food and drink).  This goes way beyond the free beef jerky at Telluride.  Just walking through downtown Austin and try getting to your film without someone pressing a Zone bar or Monster energy drink into your hand.  And if you're bored and killing time there are also a lot of opportunities to grab random swag on the trade show floor.  I mostly resisted that.  But just to give you a sense of what's going on here are a few of the better free distractions
- The Macallan tasting booth.  How many festivals have you been to with a scotch sponsor that holds a daily tasting?  Approach with caution.  It turns out that 15 year old scotch is deceptively smooth.
- Sobe tent - not just sampling their beverages.  But actually setting up a bar to mix drinks with their product.  You literally could spend the entire day drinking there if you chose.  More interesting to me - their willingness to hand over their quite slick SXSW 2010 T-shirts if only you asked.
- IFC Crossroads House - my favorite place to hang during SXSW (not counting the Alamo of course).  IFC took over a building, added a free coffee bar, a place to recharge your portable device (complete with power adapters), held an evening happy hour and broadcast from an intimate studio set up inside.  Not to mention their daily complimentary breakfast which was plentiful and tasty.  You could grab a free coffee and listen to an interview with Ed Norton just a few feet away.  The photo booth and video games were just gravy.  IFC - I'll be looking for you in 2011 - please come back, it just wouldn't be the same without you. :-)
- Trade show floor snacking - even if you couldn't care less about a job with Google or wanted a new whatever walking the trade show floor was interesting and entertaining.  Not to mention a decent source of a quick sugar fix.
- More happy hours than one knows what to do with.  Simply didn't have time to sample any of them except a quick walk by of IFC House before the Lemmy screening.
- The parties, my lord, the parties... See my post on The People vs. George Lucas for just one example.  Though there were at least 2-3 parties each night to choose from I went for film as the priority.  Maybe next year I'll branch out.

R&R Shuttle - SXSW offers a complimentary Film Shuttle to badgeholders between downtown and the Llamar Alamo for part of the festival.  On the website there's a lot of talk about the R&R shuttle pass which gives you unlimited rides between your non-downtown hotel and the Convention Center.  I'd somewhat misread the offer as I thought it was between any venue and your hotel.  That would have been a lot more valuable.  As it stands it is convenient and if you're on your own likely easier than cabbing it back to Town Lake each night.  But if you're with a group seeing films together the economics of sharing a cab vs. buying several shuttle passes may make less sense.  Either way it's nice that it's offered and it's not terribly expensive.

Well, that's all for now.  Slackerwood has a great venue guide and all around comprehensive coverage of SXSW coverage.  I'll do other posts on the "SXSW experience" as the mood strikes me.  For now, back to the film writeups.  Please be patient, it's going to take a while.

SXSW Film Bumpers (Austin vs. Vancouver)

It's pretty common for film festivals to produce custom bumper trailers to screen ahead of films.  Some festivals are better than others - Vancouver being my personal favorite.  Even if you'll never attend it's worth checking out these three from last year for their pure amusement value (Subtitles, Sexuality, Disturbing). Some festivals go way over board with tons of stuff before each film (yes, I'm talking to you SIFF).  SXSW just has a short spot and some well done bumpers.  The "midnight" film one (1st below) is my hands down favorite.  Embedded below for your convenience...

The Freebie

I highly recommend adding The Freebie to your list of to-do's for the coming year. Not so much for any revelation within the story but for the on screen chemistry of the main couple and the overall production.

At the film's start we're introduced to a couple in their (I'm guessing) later twenties who've been married a few years. They're downright adorable right down to their crossword puzzle races in bed. Having been together a bit they've noticed that hanging out has begun to trump sex.  After a night hanging out with their friends their pillow talk turns to the idea of each of them being with another person for one night (aka the "freebie" of the title). From this point on the film's arc is fairly predictable - at least to anyone who has seen a movie on the problem of separating rationale planning (this sounds like a good idea and we can handle it) to the emotional response (which just is).  It also seems equally predictable to everyone in the film short of the couple involved.  Interestingly enough seeing that this could not quite work out as planned seems to be an issue that crosses national and age boundaries.  In Palm Springs I saw a film with very similar themes - A Rational Solution - with roughly similar results.  Though it wasn't nearly as enjoyable as a film.

Even though the arc may be predictable the story is edited together in a way that held my interest though I strongly suspected the final destination. And as mentioned before the main couple had me sold from minute one - without their natural interactions I doubt I would have liked it that much. My understanding is that the script was largely improvised - so hat's off to all involved for the natural dialog. Technically the film is well put together visually and audibly. Managing to preserve the natural feel of mumblecore flicks without the negatives (such as an inexpensive look and poor audio). If you've liked recent films by Lynn Shelton or involving the Duplass brothers, etc. I'm pretty sure you won't be disappointed. And even if you don't particularly care for the genre as a whole this one may start to shift your thinking.

37th Annual Telluride Film Festival

Passes recently went on sale for the 37th annual Telluride Film Festival which takes place each year over Labor Day weekend.  I went for the first time last year, and hopefully will get to go back again at some point.  This year I won't be attending as I have other (and considerably better) plans for that weekend.  Recently a friend asked about the festival and while I was writing up some notes I realized it's possible others might be contemplating the trip.  In short I definitely encourage checking out the festival if you can.  There's a lot of hype about the festival, and the folks running it are fond of saying there's nothing else like it (I was actually told that Telluride will "ruin me for other festivals" at one point).  I wouldn't suggest mortgaging your house or selling your first born - if you're a regular festival goer there's definitely a lot of things you'll find familiar.  But the beautiful natural environment, well run program and enthusiastic crowds make it worth trying at least once.  Not to mention that several of my favorite films of 2009 screened there - which given the four day timeframe is a pretty impressive record.


Getting there:
Getting to Telluride is 90% of the downside side of the festival IMHO.  You need to plan time for it, it's not super cheap (though Frontier isn't really that bad) and you pretty much have to deal with a tiny plane at some point. Unless you can get a direct charter - which they do out of LA. Though the direct charter was super expensive and came sort of late and left sort of early. Could be worth it.  I assume you probably get to fly with interesting and fabulous people. :-)

Last year the Telluride airport was closed. It's something like 15 minutes away. So this year I had booked a flt there (connecting in Denver) before my brother announced his plans. The other two common locations to fly into are Cortez and Montrose (the Telluride website has some other options with longer drives as well). Both are pretty far away from Telluride (I want to say a 80-90 minute drive but can't quite remember). The good news is that for $50 each way I took a shuttle from Cortez (which is a little farther). So those are your three simplest airport choices. If you do book a flight I'd suggest getting there the day before the festival starts or very early that first day. And probably leaving on the Tuesday as you can see films until late on Monday.  Last year I had a very easly morning flight on Tuesday which forced me to leave at 3:30 AM but it was still worth getting in a last night of film.  Another benefit of not leaving early is that it gets easier to get into things the second half.  So don't skip Monday. I've heard sometimes weather makes flying into Telluride tough - folks get diverted to Cortez or Montrose anyway. Seems like something worth knowing before attempting to fly into one of the highest altitude airports in the US.

Driving is also an option from easier to get to destinations such as Denver. It's something like 6-7 hrs though I've heard it's very pretty. Of course that probably means renting a car which is completely unnecessary for the festival otherwise.

Telluride is very beautiful so if you have the time getting there earlier or staying later is not a bad idea.

Pass Selection:
Last year I got the basic full pass - which seems to have gone up this year (all passes did). Most fun I'm sure is the Patron pass which guarantees you admission to whater you want. But I'm assuming most readers are not looking to spent that kind of money ($3900). I'd suggest either the festival pass $780, which is pretty much like most film festival's full series pass (including that of SIFF) OR the ACME ($520) which is cheaper (and sells out much faster). There's also a more limited Cinephile pass ($390) that I'd avoid unless reading the description makes it absolutely perfect for you.  The ACME guarantees you admission to every show at the Chuck Jones. And also gives you entry to two other screenings of your choice over the course of the festival. Now that sounds more limiting, and in some ways it is. BUT, the festival pass doesn't guarantee admission - so you end up waiting on line a lot, way more than many other festivals I think. Which is fun as everyone spent a ton of time and money to get there, so conversation quality is high. But still, I kept thinking a little less waiting might be nice. So the trade-off is because you can only go to one theater I believe they have to let you in so waiting would be a bit less. Or at least you're waiting for a better seat vs. getting in at all. Since most things cycle through the Chuck (and I'd seen the majority of my films there anyway last year) I was going to try the ACME this year. Seems you'd also see the same people more often which would have a nice community effect. I spoke to a lot of ACME passholders and they always sort of leaned over and whispered when they talked about it, clearly they thought it was a great deal. Sadly, it went up in price too this year - but it's still less expensive.

Last year ACME sold out when none of the others did. So if you're going to Telluride and want this pass don't wait - jump on it now.  Plus (almost forgot) there are other ways to get around the limits of ACME. Every night there's an outdoor screening for free. And Telluride outdoor is better than many "true" theaters (if a bit colder) the projection, screen and sound were top notch. Also once you're in Telluride you can buy a "late pass" for $40 (I think) which gets you in to the last show of the day at any venue. And remember you get two movies at non Chuck venues with the ACME pass anytime during the fest.  So I'm not pushing it (sadly I get no commission) but if you're stressing about the cost it's not a bad way to go.

Physical Layout:
One of the few negative aspects of the Telluride is price.  The passes are expensive, as is transportation in most cases and housing is a bit pricey. It's cheaper if you stay in Mountain Village which I did.  Plus I got to see a deer one night on the way back to my hotel at 2 AM.  Which yes - scared the begeezus out of me.  The hotels tend to have crappy cancellation policies - so travel insurance might not be a bad idea.  Last year I booked on Expedia and did pretty well. There's just initial sticker shock until you poke around. There's Telluride and Telluride Mountain Village. The former has all the venues but one and is a lot more expensive from what I can tell. The one venue in Mountain Village is the Chuck Jones theater - and it's pretty nice (and as described above is where the ACME folks are hanging out). The two "towns" are connected by gondola - which is free, fast and super fun. Also runs until 2am. So regardless where you stay you're not really that far from anything.  Regardless where you stay you'll probably be on the gondola which is another nice source of time to chat with your fellow festival goers.  There are actually two gondola's.  One from Telluride to Mountain Village and another to upper Mountain village.  I stayed in the upper section and it was fine - just another 10 minutes or so.  Gondola's are a very consistent way to travel it turns out.

The Films:
One thing that does differ with Telluride is that you'll likely be in the town or well on the way there before you find out what films will be screened.  So basically you've just got to trust 'em and go.  Which really isn't that different from most festivals, though folks seem to get a lot of pleasure in playing a guessing game as to what will screen there.  Since their policy is almost always to never take anything that's shown in North America you're almost never going to have to worry things won't be new to you (though I did catch Bright Star before Telluride 2009).  And as I mentioned earlier the quality for me was very high.  Here's a link to my experiences cinematically speaking from last year.

Other random stuff:
Beyond the location, cost, and the mystique it's a lot like any other fest. Prices to eat in Telluride aren't particularly crazy.  Lots of quick choices too as the fest takes over. Either the Festival or ACME pass includes a cool communal picnic on Monday. The Festival pass includes a dinner on main street (which I only caught the tail end of and think is probably worth skipping for a film anyway). A bit better swag and some cool venues - and occasional true star sightings. Without entourage. So nothing keeps you from walking up and chatting with Werner Herzog if you want. And the vibe of the fest (and it's traditions) seem to encourage the no wall with famous people thing. Almost all films have Q&A's with the director or stars which is a big plus.  Though now that I've been to SXSW I do have to point out that there's a decided lack of free continual alcohol in comparison.  Doesn't much matter to me, but it does lend a different atmosphere to the proceedings.  Oh, and lots of drinking at this altitude probable isn't a great idea anyway.  It's high enough that you'll likely notice it.  The effects on me were pretty minimal until I tried running for a film at some point.  I've been told though it's rougher on some - particularly the first day.  In that case you might consider trying to stay in Telluride whose altitude is lower than Mountain Village (particularly vs. the upper village location I stayed at)


More to come...
If there's any interest I'll write some notes on venues, and other learnings from my trip last year.  This year I'll have to (possibly) console myself with Fantastic Fest - which according to a quote from Variety on their website is the "The geek Telluride… Fantastic Fest lives up to its name"

Feel free to ping me via email or in the comments with questions.

Almost forgot - if you want to really follow the run up to what films are going to show up this year you'll want to checkout Michael's Telluride Blog which has already started his forecasting for 2010.

Suck (Canada)

Comic vampire rock opera with a name that gets lots of second looks when folks ask you what you're on line for - what's not to love?

The story here is a thinly veiled analogy to selling one's soul to get ahead in the music business. But it's easy to forget that and just enjoy the ride.  At the start we meet a group of seemingly talented if unsuccessful indy rockers playing a club in Canada. While the low attendance might be a tip off that all is not well in their careers the clearest sign is their manager (Dave Foley) giving them his best professional advice to fire their manager. Which it seems is very good advice indeed as it turns out everything he'd been promising them was lies. Nonetheless they set out to their fictional CMJ showcase. Along the way their female bassist meets a creepy older man who takes here through a life change that leaves her a bit bloodthirsty. With a Van Helsing type on their trail they head towards the US leaving the occasionally dismembered body in their wake.  Turns out that having an undead female band member who has supernatural sex appeal doesn't hurt a band's success as much as one might guess.  Though they soon find out that success has it's dark side as well.  I will say no more.

The film has near endless cameos of well known musicians, some great tunes and an amusing (if not always hilarious) plot line. Worth seeing if only for the use of a straw as a way for one of the vamps to get their fix vs. the more traditional bite and suck method.  Yep, it's not high art - but it's fun and well done.  There's also an embedded game of spot the re-created album cover in case you get bored.  Which I suspect you won't.



Screening notes:
Saw this one at SXSW on my final full night there.  The Q&A afterwards was pretty entertaining - especially the comments from Dave Foley. Interestingly they'd been trying to get the movie made for quite a while until the sparkly vampire craze got the project restarted. As they mentioned the Canadian government was a significant supporter of the film I suppose you can add that to the list of reasons to not completely hate socialism. ;-) Oh, and having lived in Buffalo I'm not sure the meat throwing at concerts really was a joke.  But even if it was Moby was a good sport for putting up with it.

Cherry

Cherry seems to have been created in part to prove that one can make a film about a guy determined to shed his virginity without the need to include a scene with the same guy fucking a pie (metaphorically speaking of course).  By that measure they've definitely succeeded.  Overall I found the film relatively enjoyable, but at the same time felt something pulling it all together was missing.

Our young hero heads off to college to study engineering.  Raised by parents who are both engineers who themselves come from a line of engineers he feels his career is cast in stone.  Of course things aren't as simple as that.  While he appears mildly interested in engineering there's clearer evidence on display as to his gifts as an artist.  Fitting the lame parents in movies everywhere model they don't want to hear about it and consider any art classes a waste of his time.  Which is a shame because his engineer skills are questionable - as are those of everyone else involved in his program (including the faculty) - more on that in a bit.  Oh, and of course he's a virgin, but I think you knew that.  Once at college he has various trials and tribulations to endure on the road to finding himself.  Complicating things more than usual are the older woman he meets and her too young for him (but highly sexualized daughter).  Let the games begin...

There are plenty of individual scenes to recommend the film including some true laugh out loud moments.  Perhaps the best is the detailed diagram provided to the main character by his father as a going away gift - detailing the "improbable" location of the clitoris.  Along with a hand written note that earlier access to this information "might have saved my marriage to your mother."  Cherry also includes life advice even for those not looking to lose their virginity.  For example the film reminds us that much in college much like like prison the key thing on your first day is to beat the crap out of your cell/room-mate.  Or maybe that's just my interpretation given what the main character puts up with from his roomie who feels he can take advantage of the virgin him in increasingly frustrating ways.

Overall the film has a slightly dark tone than you'd expect from a film whose title sounds remarkably like a simple college guy on a quest to get laid flick. The young engineering student wanders into an art class where he excels given his clear talent.  In class he meets an "older woman" probably in her early thirties who takes a shine to him. While he imagines it as a sexual opportunity that doesn't seem to be her agenda. Though occasionally it is for her 14 year old daughter who also likes him.  The relationship between him and the daughter (who he does have chemistry with) is another positive aspect of the film.  But the woman has problems which he's truly not in a good position to deal with.  Which drive the darker, dealing with addiction aspects of the movie.  As opposed to a fairly simple film starring Meryl Streep recently, this one truly could have been named "It's complicated."

Likely invisible to many, but seriously disappointing to me was the treatment of engineering students onscreen. While there were some hilariously realistic moments (such as students arguing over the process required to determine who among them is the most *ahem* "manly") most of the education process as depicted is beyond ridiculous. Case in point - a term project to build a device to walk on water. In the end scene it's obvious from the results that most of the students have never tested their devices. Which is a truly shocking omissions from alleged top notch engineering students. I mean, come on?....  This is probably not likely to bother many as much as it did me.  But if you share the ability to watch Control-Alt-Delete and find the idea of a dude sexing up his computer (in a very literal sense) less bizarre/unrealistic than the pseudo office environment the characters worked in - then you have been warned.

While this movie wasn't perfect I felt there was enough to like to recommend it. It's not altogether a satisfying conclusion in the vein of simple John Hughes films. But overall it was a pleasant enough take on the genre to avoid warning you away from checking it out.

SXSW: The final count

Well - I'm back and the final count is in.  In between a multitude of great distractions (not even counting the IFC Crossroad's house all day free coffee bar) I managed to fit in 22 films during SXSW.  One of them I did sort of sneak out of early to catch a second one - but I'm still counting it as what I saw convinced me that I need to come back and watch it another time.  I'm definitely going to put up more involved notes for each.  For now I'm just going to publish the full list.

I had a great time, and the list of films were a nice selection, even though the English speaking bias is a bit different than what I'd have normally have seen at a festival.  In addition to film notes I'll also be posting thoughts about the festival with a goal of giving an overview of what to expect to people considering attending.  Seems I've got a lot of writing ahead of me.  So for now I'm just going to try and get some sleep.  Almost caught up on that after a week running on 4-5 hours (at most) a day.  Let's just say it wasn't a good week for Daylight Savings time to rear its ugly head.  In short though - two thumbs way up for SXSW, Austin, and the Alamo Drafthouse chain of theaters.

Here's the list of films I caught - reviews will be forthcoming.  Please be patient. :-)

• Dogtooth
• Leaves of Grass
• The People vs. George Lucas
• Narrative Shorts 1
• Narrative Shorts 2
• Documentary Shorts
• Midnight Shorts
• The Parking Lot Movie
• Helena From the Wedding
• Higanjima
• American: Bill Hicks
• Lemmy
• The Freebie
• Cold Weather
• Lebanon, PA
• Barry Munday
• The Loved Ones
• This Movie is Broken
• Cherry
• Get Low
• Suck
• No One Knows Persian Cats

The People vs. George Lucas

This documentary film explores the love/hate relationship between fans of the Star Wars franchise and its creator George Lucas.  It's an alternatively sad, emotional, and hilarious story told in a way that should be accessible even to those only casually familiar with the films.  In fact, I think you'll enjoy it most if you don't come with strongly set convictions about the topic.  But even if you've been following the saga (onscreen and off) for a while you'll probably learn something new.

For instance, I've been aware of the whole "Greedo shot first" controversy for some time.  For those not familiar it's both the basis for a lot of mistrust for George Lucas from fans, but interestingly enough also for the neo-con doctrine of preemptive war that took us into Iraq.  OK, it's possible I made that second part up.  For those unsure what the heck I'm talking about let's assume you saw Star Wars.  If you haven't please stop reading now and go rent the movie.  I'll wait ...

Great, glad to have you back with us.  The interesting thing though is that if you rented the DVD you saw something different than what screened in theaters during my impressionable youth (and what was released on VHS).  In both versions Han Solo meets Luke Skywalker and Obi Wan Kenobi in a canteen.  While in the nightclub Han is approached by a hired goon (albeit a green one) named Greedo who insists that money is owed to Jabba the Hut.  In the original version while they're talking Han having taken measure of the situation slips his blaster out of its holster and kills Greedo.  Which even years later is a pretty awesome scene.  However, in later years it seems that Lucas had some misgivings about this, perhaps it came across as too cold blooded (there's a lot of mention of having children having ruined his judgement on this point).  So when he went back to clean up the prints and do an updated Star Wars release with improved special effects he also made some alterations.  The most famous of which is Greedo shooting at Han first - and unbelievably missing from two feet away.  Fans were (are) livid about how it completely modified the persona of Solo.  And I must admit the scene is way better as originally shot.  Not exactly sure why Lucas wants to soften a character whose main line of work at the beginning of the film appears to be smuggler without a conscious.  Perhaps worse than making these changes it seems that Lucas for lack of a better term attempted to "disappear" the original film.  Refusing to release it on DVD alongside the "improved" version and even going so far as to say the original print was destroyed in the updating process.  The film walks though some of the other questionable "enhancements" to the films most of which I hadn't heard of previously.

The film covers a lot of ground.  Ranging from famous directors bemoaning the trap that Star Wars became artistically for Lucas (never really making anything beyond that universe again) to the unbelievable marketing and product lines that have sprung up around the franchise and the disappointment that the later trilogy of films were to many fans.  Interestingly enough though, much as friends with children have told me, the younger generation seems to enjoy the later films better - even though the original three are clearly superior (seriously - Jar Jar Binks? - WTF?). :-)  Much of the film is made up of interviews of folks explaining their love or hatred (usually both) of the world the great man created.  The range of these commentaries add a lot of spice to the proceedings.

Say what you want about George Lucas, but I was hugely impressed with what seemed to be a very enlightened attitude towards allowing fans to re-imagine the film either as re-enactments (live action, animated, puppetry, etc.) or actual re-editings of the original works without armies of lawyers descending on the violators of his "intellectual property."  It's rare to see someone with such a valuable franchise embrace (or at least leave well enough alone) a fan based re-mix culture.  Perhaps it came of my generation's playing with their Star Wars action figures and re-telling the story to their liking that drove such an active fan culture.  But for whatever reason the passion for folks to re-imagine the story is shown to be both broad and deep.  It's just that when George messes with the bible (and then refuses to provide access to both testaments) people tend to get very upset.  It seems a shame that he doesn't take the Bladerunner approach and just release all the versions as a set and let the fans decide which ones they want to watch.  Even so I supect all of us are willing to give him a pass on the Star Wars Christmas Special (which I'm not making up - I'm even pretty sure I watched it the one time it aired).  I mean we all do make mistakes...

I don't want to say too much more about the various controversies - better you see the film, they do a much better job of explaining it all in a very entertaining way.  I quite enjoyed it.  The trailer may make it seem like it's a bit of a one sided story.  In reality the movie is actually pretty well rounded in my view and even raises some thought provoking questions about who owns a piece of art that's also part of the world's collective consciousness, especially if the artist wants to make "just a few small tweaks."  But all in all it's a fun ride and worth catching if you can.

Screening Notes: Now while I enjoyed the film, I positively loved the after-party.  I saw the movie at SXSW and after the screening and an interesting Q&A the folks behind the movie invited everyone next door to The Highball for a celebratory party.  While I certainly wouldn't have minded a few more free drinks (though what I paid for was well worth it) I certainly can not complain about their inclusion of Princess Leia dancers.  This is one of those occasions where I was glad I skipped a film to checkout something different.  Where else are you going to see Imperial Stormtroopers and Darth Vader mixing it up on the dance floor with the general public wielding light sabers with reckless abandon?  Thankfully, everyone got out of there with all limbs attached.  The force was definitely strong with this crowd.  Some additional photos from the party follow - apologies for the poor quality, I am so getting a better camera before the next fest.

Stormtrooper breaking protocol and letting the ladies try on his helmet

Keeping a close watch on the dance floor

Hopefully this relationship won't make George's next cut

 

Stormtrooper on the turntable?

The whole "these are not the badgeholders you are looking for" bit worked on the Stormtroopers before the film, but not so much on Lord Vader

We temporarily interrupt this transmission

If you've noticed a dearth up updates that's because I'm currently at the totally awesome SXSW Film Festival. I've got lots of updates coming out on Twitter (linked to your right) but not a lot of time to write. I'll be catching up starting this weekend through next week (I expect). Both the films that I saw here and movies I didn't catch up on before leaving. Speaking of which - "Alice in Wonderland" - no need to rush. ;-)

Hot Tub Time Machine

Hot Tub Time Machine is certainly one of the more descriptively named films of the last year.  As promised, it's about a hot tub that's also a time machine (seems to work just fine as a hot tub as well).  The story's not overly complicated either.  Three friends and a nephew head out to a ski resort for a pick me up weekend after one of them (Rob Corddry) maybe tries to kill himself.  The ski resort was chosen as it played a role in their fonder memories of their youth.  While close friends when younger they've drifted apart since.  Of course they all have relationship issues of some sort and things aren't quite where they dreamed they'd be beyond that as well.  Rounding out the group is John Cusack's nephew (Clark Duke) who lives in his basement and isn't even quite a success in Second Life (apparently doing hard time there due to some wrong choices).  When they get to the resort it quickly becomes clear that their favorite haunt hasn't made out much better over the years than they have.  Thankfully the film moves through this initial setup phase in a direct and snappy manner as everyone who's read the name of the film knows what's in store.  With nothing to do they pile into the hot tub along with an abundance of alcohol and a Russian energy drink.  After a night of drunken male bonding they wake up in 1986.  Happens to the best of us...

At which point the hilarity is set to ensue.  I'll admit that over time my expectations of this film have grown.  When I first heard the concept I thought it was the dumbest idea ever, but eventually it started to grow on me.  I didn't laugh quite as much as I'd hoped, but I certainly laughed enough to recommend the movie.  And it's one of those things where some of the gags are making me laugh more thinking back than they did at the time.  I think the film works especially well if you have low expectations.  I saw it with eight friends at a preview screening and it seems that the less each person expected of the film the better they enjoyed it.  All the male leads do pretty well with the material, making the parts relatively three dimensional for this sort of film.  Once back in time the older men appear to others as their younger selves - leading to three extra non-speaking parts in the film.  Which is the main explanation why everyone they meet doesn't think of them as creepy old men.

Thrown back into their past as themselves their first instinct is to try and fix everything wrong in the future.  But after concerns are expressed about "the butterfly effect" they resolve to try and change as little as possible.  Though after a while their confidence on that point starts to weaken somewhat, and with good reason.  It's an interesting message, as I think the moral of the story is that if you find yourself back in time under similar circumstances the first thing you should be thinking is "screw the butterfly effect", unless your current life is totally perfect.  I felt after taking a small negative dip the film ended fairly strong with what's overall a sweet message.  Though I must warn those of a certain age that flashing these characters back to their youth (and mine as seen through the teen movies spoofed) occasionally had a slightly depressant touch for me personally.
 
I'm curious to see the film again - probably on video so I can pause it.  It's strongest aspect for me is as an endless movie trivia event making reference directly or indirectly to (probably) hundreds of other films.  From skiing over picnic tables, Karate Kid ("get him a body bag..."), Red Dawn ("Wolverines!") no classic 80's teen genre moment seems to small.  Probably knowing it's audience well there are forays into the 90's - the most memorable one for me being a brief homage to Kevin Smith via a Chinese finger cuffs throwaway line (you can look that up yourself if you must - just add Chasing Amy and you're good to go).  Basically, observant film fans will be endlessly rewarded.  There's even what I thought was a great sly insertion of the weird girl with a hat archetype that's one of my favorites.  Of course there's lots of non-film 80's jokes throughout, but for me the movie references generally were more entertaining.

In keeping with the don't just suspend disbelief but throw it out the door of a speeding car plot the filmmakers seem to have wisely made the decision to be unrestrained across the board.  The movie is rated R - mostly for language and sexual innuendo with a bit of gratuitous nudity thrown in.  I could have perhaps done without some of the scatological humor, but overall there wasn't enough of that to totally turn me off.  And some of the film length gags even worked for me such as Crispin Glover's one armed bell-hop who in 1986 was fully limbed.

All said and done I hope someone mounts an Oscar campaign for Craig Robinson on behalf of his ability to deliver the line "must be some kind of .... Hot Tub Time Machine" with a straight face once they arrive in 1986.