In the Toronto Film Challenge part 4 of 4: The Gala

TFCGala.jpgThere's a lot to be said for semi-formal soirees. After the blurry-eyed race to finish a short in 48 hours, a good crowd of film-types pulled together and looking swish gave the whole Toronto Film Challenge a real sense of seriousness. As did the sweet prizes that came with the awards.

The nominees weren't announced, so though there were certainly some confident attendees, no one knew for sure which were the top ten films until the programs were handed out (after cocktail hour) as everyone entered the screening theatre.

wegnerandmullins.jpgI took advantage of the pre-screening schmooze time to chat with a few of the filmmakers in attendance. I was introduced to repeat TFC winners Lisa Wegner (producer/actor) and Donnie Mullins (director), whose film Countenance marks their third film challenge.

On their first film challenge, their film won 5 of the 7 awards, and was sold to the Ontario College of Art as a teaching tool. With that kind of positive reaction, it makes sense that they'd come back for more. It helps that they have a professional team (Wegner and Mullins both work in 'the industry', so they know some people). And that they have a lot of fun.

Also, Wegner and Mullins both feel that the TFC helped them find their voice - Mullins emphasizes that with the challenge you work out the story as you're shooting, using the skills of the people you have, rather than being tied to a specific script and trying to find people for it.

He says you "start with people" so the process is "more communal". Wegner adds that though they've worked on short films with larger budgets, this project cost them 600$ and notes that it's among their best work. If you have the talent, the budget doesn't matter.

Another repeat TFCer is Dion Saunders, one of the peeps behind Nadia's Train (which was actually in the same screening as The Blue Seal). Saunders has been in several challenges, the first in Vancouver, then two 24-hour TFCs, 1 unsuccessful 48 (didn't finish), and one finished 48. With that many under his belt, which does he prefer? "I like the 24 better" Saunders says, since in the 48 there's more of a break in the crew (writers, production, then edit) because there's room for it.

Also, Saunders notes that with the extra time is the potential to get a little too comfortable - his film was turned in 30 seconds before the deadline - they didn't start the sound edit until 7pm and the film was due by 8pm. It's always "heart exploding, killing pedestrians" to beat the clock at the last minute.

mikedonis.jpgMike Donis, the director of the piece I worked on The Blue Seal, has determined that though he had a great time, this will be his first and last Film Challenge. (This is before hearing about the prizes, by the way). He's already "gone crazy and had a lot of fun" and that experience is enough, he doesn't want to compare subsequent films and disappoint himself. Donis has never finished a film in under two and a half weeks before, but finished this one with 3 hours to spare - time budgeted in his schedule for safety, since he lives in Scarberia and needed room for the commute.

The best thing about the TFC, Donis says, it that it forces you to make a project you wouldn't have otherwise - "I would not have made an action movie," though he loved the idea, because "no one would take it seriously." Since it was part of the assignment, he got to throw himself into the genre, though he noticed that a few other projects cheated on some of the challenge pack items.

The Ten Finalists

1. Trouble on Treetop Terrace - a moc/doc about a girl living with amorous roomies and a dog to which she is allergic. The shining moment is the sfx where the dog gets hit by a truck.

2. Countenance - the film (mentioned above, from Lisa Wegner and David Mullins) wherein a man tries to get a promotion from his boss during a social visit - he and his wife/significant other head to a bbq with the boss and his w/so - and discovers just how twisted they are. A brilliantly improvised script, including some genius lines like "He knows over 500 Elizabethan medleys".

3.Life is Yard Work - a tennis player gets conned into training at a "mental gymnasium" where a guy in a bathrobe makes him do gardening. Best line- "Choose wisley," (actor chooses lawn implement) "you have chosen wisely."

4. Until You Came Along - an intensely creepy film wherein a mental patient loses it on the psych ward nurse. Scary. Looked really nice, too, though they cheated a bit - it was more thriller than drama and no one was trapped in a closet. Like, at all.

5. Growing Memories - Two guys in lab coats breed a new species of plant, trying (I think, the dialogue was a little confusing) to make some miracle cure-all but instead making a killer plant. Do they destroy the evidence, or the research? Tough choice. Best line: "I'm too f*cking smart to go to jail."

6. Broken Entry - An interrogation after a break-in. A couple pleads innocence, but turns out they're just kinky - they hired the dudes to rob the place to spice up their sex life.

7. Legend of Clipper Dos Santos - One of my favs; a moc/doc about the disappearance of a famous barber. A weird wannabe-biker type (hella charismatic actor), a couple and a Spanish lady are interviewed. Really nice looking film, and choice acting.

8.The Blue Seal - Yep, my team was in the top ten! Woo! To review, it's a action flick wherein a couple dudes have to get an envelope out of a house and to the pick-up in 6 minutes. There's someone waiting inside. And a car chase. Sweet.

9. The Outpost - I had a really hard time understanding the plot on this one. There were some sweet special effects though. It was a sci-fi flick, set on Mars, and something happens to the humans? Earth is wiped out? Some dude kills himself in front of a robot? I don't know.

10. Crossing Brooklyn Ferry - Remember my enthusiasm for this film at the earlier screening? I was so stoked to see them in the top ten. To review, a moc/doc masquerading as sci-fi - Derek lives with Bill. Bill thinks a unicorn stole his wallet, and therefore they have to hunt it everyday. Hilarious. My favourite actor (still) Cole Bastedo wasn't at the Gala, alas.

Before the winners were announced, the audience had to suffer through the arrogant pontifications of Bill Marshall (a big kahuna from TIFF). I don't mind someone in 'the biz' giving everyone a tip or two, but what a way to kill a good time.

The guy just kept going on and on about how not to be amateur and how much stuff he didn't like. Dude. It's a 48 hour film challenge, not Cannes. And let's not pretend TIFF is the most important festival in the world. Get over yourself. Yeah, it's a big deal, but give me a break.

Besides which, he didn't say a thing you wouldn't hear in film 101 frosh year, and made some overly simple comments about style - i.e. don't do handheld, don't flare the lens - you know, the rules you can break when you know why they exist. I don't make films for Marshall, and I doubt anyone at the TFC writes, shoots and edits with him in mind. Killjoy.

Anyway.

What you've been waiting for... the envelope please:
bestpicture.jpg

Best Editing - Growing Memories
Best Cinematography - Until You Came Along
Best Audio - The Blue Seal (yay, go us!)
Best Screenplay - Countenance (it was improv...)
Best Actress - Karine Pion, The Legend of Clipper Dos Santos
Best Actor - David Read, Broken Entry
Audience Choice Award - Crossing Brooklyn Ferry (word!)
Best Director - Mike Donis, The Blue Seal (wicked, eh?)
Best Picture - Broken Entry

All in all, the TFC was a wild and really fun experience. I love seeing talented people throw it down on the fly. Maybe next time, I'll be in the driver's seat. We'll see. You should all get in on this, too.

Reader Reviews and Comments

Submit a Review or Comment

I was at the Gala on Firday and the Film Challenge lost credibility for me when the obvious best film Countenance didn't win.

I beleieve the judges were coerced. The TIFF judge spoke quite openly on the podium and at the after party that the best film didn't win.

I think this isn't really a film challenge or the judges were paid off. Countenance was in every catgory the best film. Honestly I can't even remmeber the film that won best film. The rest were amateur films, only worthy of awards if the one really good film wasn't there.

The Film Challenge has lost professional credibility for me. It's a shame.

Posted by: Paul at July 10, 2006 11:33 AM

Really? Paid off? I agree that Countenance was superb, but I wouldn't say it was streets ahead of Legend of Clipper Dos Santos or Crossing Brooklyn Ferry in terms of acting or humour.

I'm not really sure why Broken Entry won best picture, but I really can't see how anything underhanded would have happened.

I could more easily imagine that after the same team swept the awards their first time in the Challenge and won a lot their second time 'round, the judges might have been wanting to spread the wealth a bit, in terms of prizes, trying to be fair.

Who would buy the judges off? To what end? And isn't the TFC about having a good time? I mean, of course most of the entries are amateur, but I'd say at least half of the top ten were polished films, regardless of time frame.

Posted by: Katherine at July 10, 2006 11:47 AM

I agree I don't think the judges were "paid off", but there was definately some monkey business.

"Spread the wealth"? Isn't it a competition? To see who
is best?

So at the Olympics if a country wins too many awards,
the awards should be spread out? That's an amateur concept... not a true competition.

Posted by: Cathy Smith at July 10, 2006 12:19 PM

As an organizer for the TFC, i can assure you that none of the judges were 'coerced' or 'paid off' in any way. The winners were chosen by tallying the top numbers from all 3 judges. I personally loved 'Countenance' and everything Might Brave do. They certainly got my nod in a few cateogires, but it's not up to us who wins, regardless of our own choices.

Posted by: Mike at July 10, 2006 1:07 PM

As an organizer for the TFC, i can assure you that none of the judges were 'coerced' or 'paid off' in any way. The winners were chosen by tallying the top numbers from all 3 judges. I personally loved 'Countenance' and everything Might Brave do. They certainly got my nod in a few cateogires, but it's not up to us who wins, regardless of our own choices.

Posted by: Mike at July 10, 2006 1:08 PM

I thought the film challenge gala was pretty unorganized. I really didn't wanna wait for 15 minutes at a time so they could get everything together. And the sound was bad a lot of the time. I thought MArshall was funny and I think everyone here took him too seriously.
Countenance was good, but I think best audio was rightfully given.

Posted by: Renee at July 10, 2006 3:18 PM

I also thought the Film Challenge was very unorganized... the main host actor... who was he? He had no idea how to hold and audience.

And the old guy, he was so inappropriate as a host.

Very amateur.

I only remember Countenance, I agree the other films were all an amateru mess.

Posted by: Paula Godfrey at July 10, 2006 5:31 PM

Wow some harsh words for the challenge!


I'm Jon Garcia one of the many writers and one of the directors of Crossing Brooklyn Ferry and this is my 3rd time doing the challenge (the 48 last year and the spring 24). I thought Bill Marshall had some great words of wisdom during his speeches. They may have seemed a little cynical, but that's the business we're in.



I actually felt bad for the host David Kerr who had some really funny material, but very few cared to listen. A lot of the films in the Top 10 had good moments. Countenance was good, Trouble on Treetop Terrance had an incredible f/x shot, Until you Came Along had good atmosphere. But my personal favourite was Blue Seal, it was a convincing action film that had a car chase. Incredible achievement for 48 hours.



Hey I'd agree Crossing Brooklyn Ferry is an amateur film. Nothing wrong with that, I'm 20 years old; I like many of the challengers have years of practice ahead of them before they are professionals. The Toronto Film Challenge is a great stepping stone towards that, it embodies all the joys and agonizing pains of filmmaking.



If you want to check out Crossing Brooklyn Ferry again, check it out at:
www.myspace.com/jongarcia3

Posted by: JonGarcia at July 10, 2006 5:53 PM

In my opinion it is any host's responsibility to entertain the audience, not the an audience should "listen to" a host/ entertainer. There are those that have it (charisma) and those that don't.

I absolutely agree, there is nothing wrong with an amateur film. It's just that the Film Challenge proposes to be a professional competitive festival and last Friday proved that it wasn't.

Posted by: Just me at July 10, 2006 10:26 PM

When I saw the completed films last year I felt Wegner's was shoulders above the rest too. Hers was one of only two or three films that had a story to tell.

Posted by: sookie at July 11, 2006 12:46 AM

If any of you filmmakers (amateur or pro) have made any genre films (sci-fi, horror, fantasy) - shorts or features, just a quick reminder you have just three days left to mail them for consideration by our Film Festival. Full submission details here:
www.torontoafterdark.com

Good luck!

Adam Lopez
Festival Director
Toronto After Dark Film Festival

Posted by: Adam Lopez at July 11, 2006 3:25 AM

I wrote the comment about the olympics, and after reading what was written yesterday, I wanted to write in a more detail and comment on a few of the things that were said.

Yes the words have been a bit harsh. I do want to say that the older gentleman (who was a bit over the top harsh himself) had some valid comments. Unfortunately they were exclipsed by the fact that he is so jaded. At the other film challenges the hosts always say "the films were all great, good work." and I think that it was good to have some honesty this time. The films mostly are not good, this is not meant to be harsh, but true.

It is extrememly challenging to make a film. Very few people can do it well. Most of these films are damn near unwatchable (sorry). Everyone thinks they are film makers and very few are. Why do you think it's such a popular dream to have? Because everyone thinks they can do it, and telling a story to masses is very appealing.

Anyone can borrow a camcorder and use their computer to edit.

So it was refreshing that the older gentleman spoke the truth in a certain sense. I couldn't hear another person say "wow great films".

So now I want to comment on Countenance. I was impressed as a viewer. What they managed in this film was quite something. The audience laughed at all the moments (I saw it at the gala and screening) and it held the audience's attention all the way through. The people around me in both audiences said things like "wow, that one's going to win" or "that was great".

Other films got laughs, unfortunately they were often "at" the films. Poor acting, amateur special effects and ham handed directing cause the audience to laugh at the films (sorry again guys).

How Countenance held the audience is HARD to do (I do wonder about the audience choice awards for this reason, the audience respect was undeniable during both screenings.) Making a universal comedy is one of the hardest things to do. Kudos to Mighty Brave.

Also, did anyone notice how seamlessly they blended the criteria? Other teams did embarassing close ups of the prop. They blended their prop (mirror) into the story and creatively used their other criteria (making a back drop out of a box...inspired... and how perfectly crafted the set was for the film also).

And this was a coming of age story done well! The main actor had an ARC, the story was architypal yet not cliched. Extremely funny and sad... and used the coming of age as a homage to films. Great music and editing.

The acting in this film really carried it. These guys are all great. I also have no idea who the actor and actress who won awards were (sorry again). They blended in a sea of amateur while the four characters in Countenance are clear as a bell in my mind. The main actor really deserved the acting award... especially because he didn't get anything for Chasing Aces. The other three supprting were also terrific, rounded, comedic REAL characters. If you didn't want to give the award to the woman who won last year, at least honour that great performance of the trophy wife. There were a lot of comments about the great lines "elizabethan medleys" was one I heard repeated a lot.

God, if that judging was real, then I don't know who these judeges are. Honestly. I know the older gentleman was vocal that Countenance should have won. Perhaps the young actor and the young director woman were too immature to see the excellent craftsmanship I'm talking about (sorry).

I thing Countanance is one of the best shorts I have seen this year. And these guys made it in 48 hours. Wow. I can't wait to see what they make next.

Cathy Smith, (in the film biz) toronto

Posted by: Cathy Smith at July 11, 2006 8:28 AM

To be honest, I think it's very convenient to say "the young actor and young director woman were too immature to see the excellent craftsmanship...", when your only specific comments about the film's quality are entirely subjective opinions. "Great music and editing," great lines," and blanketing all of the other movies as simply "amateur" are very vague critiques. Fine, judging movies is by nature subjective - but then why not go into specifics about the qualities of all of the other movies? Truly, as the director of one of the top ten films, I would like to hear your thoughts.

Personally, I liked Countenance, and agree that it very likely deserved Best Picture and its lead (if I'm not mistaken, he did in fact win at the last challenge) deserved Best Actor, but that's *my* subjective opinion. The winners of the festival clearly were agreed upon by the majority of the judges according to *their* subjective opinion, and to discount their thoughts by calling them young is just an easy way to shut different opinions up. Steven Spielberg was only 26 when he directed Jaws - but would that have made his opinion invalid? These people are "in the film biz" as well. A quick IMDB search will show their extensive resumes.

Disagree with them all you want, but don't try to objectively discount their opinion just because it doesn't agree with your own. They were hired to do a job, and they did it.

Posted by: Michael at July 11, 2006 11:30 AM

Well said, Michael. I don't know why everyone is so upset about it - yes, it's a competition, but whither sportsmanship? You don't have to agree with the judges, but it's unfair to claim their opinion is invalid.

Who ever agrees with Oscar winners, or, for that matter, the winners of any artistic competition? There isn't a reliable means of measurement, it's all subjective.

If nothing else, be satisfied with the Audience Choice - because it's not just about following the rules, or telling an effective story, it's also about entertainment. The audience voted for the film they enjoyed the most, with nothing at stake other than supporting their favourite.

Besides which, it's a bit arrogant to say anyone can borrow a camcorder and edit something together. Yes, that is true, and a lot of people in the TFC fall into an amateur category. But so what? Every amazing filmmaker started with an amateur piece of crap. You can't learn without a few mistakes. It's unfair to begrudge people their process and write them off because they aren't at a particular level yet.

And since when does the TFC propose to be a professional competition? It's about people who love film getting out there and doing it and having a good time.

My question for all the irritated posters is, then, did you enjoy yourselves while working? And if so, why sully the experience by being irritated by a few prizes?

Posted by: Katherine at July 11, 2006 12:49 PM

I agree that Countinence could have won more awards but the other films this time were really good and all of the top 10 were there for a reason and Countinence didn't stand out as all that much better because the story was pretty dull: a guy goes to his boss' house and gets fired. The Blue Seal at least tried to do something interesting. And Broken Entry had a neat little plot that deserved the screenwriting credit way more than a boring plot made well with IMPROV acting!

They didn't win. Big deal. Maybe they should have worked more on getting the fridge box part of their challenge into their story instead of painting it and making it something else which is probly why judges didn't like it. They didn't use the all the challenge elements well and must have lost marks because of it and they weren't really a part of the story.

It was the most solid film there with good acting, editing, lighting, and no major flaws that were obvious in every other film that night. Too bad the story wasn't more interesting or they would have won. I saw that other film, Chasing Aces and it wowed me and deserved all the awards because it was so cool. That's how to 'pay off' the judges. Give'em somthing really interesting to watch.

Posted by: Filmguy at July 11, 2006 2:47 PM

I think Bill Marshall's comment regarding the winning film may have been misconstrued, as he did NOT vote 'countenance' as his winning film. A real surpirse to me, but he is entitled to his opinion, so please don't hold the Film Challenge producers responsible for the results.

Posted by: Mike (organizer) at July 11, 2006 3:09 PM

Hey, if anyone would like to see our film "Shocking Odds" you can check it out at www.gooraservices.com

Posted by: Kansas at July 11, 2006 11:11 PM

Hey I really liked Shocking Odds. Very interesting story. Good work.

Posted by: Chad M at August 3, 2006 7:44 PM

i agree with all comments but i think that nobady saw the best peformance ... ANTHONY POSER the escene in the bathroom when he talk alone well was awsome

Posted by: fiorella at September 5, 2006 11:14 AM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

Email This Entry

Email 'In the Toronto Film Challenge part 4 of 4: The Gala' to: Message (optional):
Your email address:

Please type the verification code displayed in the image:

By forwarding this entry to a friend, we do not opt you or your friend into
receiving any additional mailings from blogTO. We hate spam too.
Disclaimer: Comments and blog entries represent the viewpoints of the individual and no one else.