Sundance Film Festival 2019

       I know the Sundance Film Festival was a couple of weeks ago, but I'm still choosing to go over my experience. I went and saw a Sundance film back in the 2017 season that I enjoyed, but was sad to see that it had never gotten a theatrical release. Ever since then I have always wanted to go back and see another film because seeing a movie at Sundance is an entirely different experience than seeing a movie at the theater. This year, my older sister and I splurged a little and bought tickets to 3 different films. As a film enthusiast, I would've loved to see as many as I could, but alas the budget of a college student is not very kind and tickets are 25 dollars. We went and saw a film in each major area: Sundance, Park City, and Salt Lake. Just trying to get to each location was adventurous and exciting. The first film we saw was up in Sundance and parking was an overly long ordeal. We had to drive past the resort, park up a hill, take a shuttle down and then walk another minute to the theater. It was worth it. We sat front row which was great unlike sitting front row at a theater. Getting into Park City was another monster, but of greater magnitude. Traffic was horrendous and parking seemed almost impossible. We almost gave up until we found a parking garage with ONE spot open. Now blessed with our parking spot (and cheap too), we ran to the Library where the movie was screening. We missed the first minute or so, but it wasn't all that bad. The third film we saw screened at Salt Lake Community College in South Salt Lake. Luckily, we had learned from the previous two times and got there early. The line was still massive, but we got decent seats.  Overall, my experience this year was great and I definitely look forward to attending more in the future. Now you're probably wondering what films I actually saw. The films I saw were Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile,  Koko-Di Koko-Da, and The Boy Who Harnessed The Wind. I enjoyed all of these films. One was a bit on the 'meh' side of things, but the other 2 I really liked. I'll go in order of viewing date.

Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile

       Joe Berlinger's Ted Bundy film was on many viewers' watchlist. Mostly for one reason which I'll get into in a sec. It's a somewhat new take on the story of famous serial killer. The film excludes the gory side of things, as well as all the detective work that went into his case, and instead follows the killer as he traverses the justice system, eventually climaxing at the famous trial in Florida that was televised across the nation. Ted Bundy's story may seem overdone, but this is a take that offers a different perspective on him as a whole. While Bundy jumps from prison cell to prison cell, a lot of the film is told from the perspective of his fiance at the time, Elizabeth Kendall or Liz. The film starts out with Liz hanging out with her friend at a local bar. It is there that she meets Bundy at the jukebox and is swooned by his charm and charisma. Liz takes Bundy home with her and is expecting him to leave when he finds out that she has a kid, but he seems to have no issue with this at all. They go to the bedroom and things go on from there. Liz wakes up the next morning to find that Bundy is not in bed and hears her daughter in the kitchen. She fearfully runs to the kitchen to find that Bundy has made the both of them breakfast. This is where the film starts to introduce some of that "new perspective." From here on out, the relationship between Bundy and Liz is executed in a believable and almost fictional way. As an audience member, we have our pre-conceived notions about Bundy, but the film begins the portrayal of this romance as if these notions didn't exist like we're supposed to believe that he wasn't the crazy killer everyone knows he was.
       At a certain point, you start to see that Bundy becomes more and more clingy as the suspicions surrounding him with the police department grow and Liz becomes suspicious too. Bundy eventually starts his prison cell journey and keeps insisting to Liz, who he has proposed to by now, that he is innocent and that he will be out very soon. It is here that I have to praise the actor that plays Ted Bundy. He is played by none other than Zac Efron ( yes you read that correctly). As Bundy tries to convince everyone he is innocent, you can tell that he is desperate and that he knows he's (for lack of a better phrase) in deep shit. Efron wonderfully portrays these nuances and gives the character the right balance of charm, intuition, and secrecy. Because of the film's depiction of Bundy and his romance with Liz, it makes itself vulnerable to criticisms of glorification and manipulation. The glorification, in my opinion, was non-existent, but the manipulation was there and that's not a bad thing. I was manipulated into thinking that the romance was fictional and caught myself, for just a moment, actually believing Bundy was innocent. This is the film's strongest trait: the manner in which it manipulates you, the viewer, into the overall charm of Bundy's character. This builds more room for praise for Efron, but it also provides a new element to the story of Bundy and I'm not just talking about the film.
       The director, Joe Berlinger, came on stage after the film had ended and conducted a Q&A session with the audience. One of the audience members asked, with all the movies and documentaries that have been done over the decades, what his overall goal with the film was and what he did to make it different from all the other media outputs. Berlinger explained that one of his main goals with the movie was to make the viewer experience what it was like to have actually believed him and to experience the overbearing nature of his charm. I never knew of this until the movie, but there were many people of the public who actually believed Bundy was innocent based solely on his charm and attractiveness. This is why I think Efron was an amazing casting choice. The majority if his filmography is him in roles that use his inherent attractiveness and charisma. To put that into a context as dark and notorious as this works extremely well. I think the film does more than just swoon the audience with its main character as the director wanted. On a deeper level, we, the audience, are holding hands with Liz as we experience her emotional journey during her time spent with Bundy. We start out by liking him and enjoying his company and as the years go by we start to dig into his personality and can't help but notice that there is something off about him. This is why being manipulated into liking Bundy works. It's not about changing our perspective on who he was and the horrible things he did. It's to help us understand how this all affected Liz and how she was emotionally suffering throughout the whole ordeal. We are going through what she went through even if it was on a surface level. The last thing I'll touch on is the trailer. Berlinger stated that he had nothing to do with the trailer. If you are a bit confused then let me explain. The trailer for the film released while it was playing at Sundance and received a number of accusations. Due to the heavy metal vibe, many people thought that the film would be glorifying the killings and many cited Efron's casting as evidence of this. I'm here to tell you that, in my opinion, the film doesn't glorify what he did because you never get to see any of it. The prison and courtroom side of things are what's shown and the film even pays tribute to the victims during the credits.
       There are many praiseworthy aspects of this movie, but that doesn't mean there weren't some problems. While being sucked into Efron's charm is great, it isn't really enough to carry the film all the way through. The narrative of the film feels in the air and not really grounded in anything. It relies on basic, important events in the overall story. Emily Yoshida from Vulture states that "Berlinger's film gets sucked into the gravity of sensational events that are already a matter of public record, and spends so much time meticulously recreating them that the perspective is diluted." What she means by this is that the plot is bare and relies on "sensational events" for the progression and, because of this, diminishes the effect of the emotional sharing of Liz's narrative. It is nice to have that emotional experience with Liz, but it's not enough. It assumes that chronology is a substitute for cohesiveness and more or less relies on the audience's knowledge for complete comprehension.
       If you're the type of person who enjoys watching serial killer documentaries, or are curious as to the extent of Efron's talent, then I think the film will be satisfying. Initially, I loved the film, but after some thinking I couldn't help but notice it's narrative shortcomings. 6/10

Koko Di Koko Da

       This film went under the radar of many during the festival since I don't think I saw a single reporter or internet blogger put it among one of their favorites of the season. The only reason my sister and I went and saw this was because we were bummed out about the fact the Bundy movie had sold out (my sister would miraculously garner the last two tickets later in the week). We talked over the phone as she read the plots of a number of other films that seemed interesting and this was the one we decided on. She explained that it was labeled as a psychodrama that takes place in the woods. for some reason, my mind immediately jumped to memories of The Witch (which screened at Sundance a couple of years ago) and my small excitement grew from there. I could only find two pictures from the movie and, with a thin plot description, basically went into the movie blind.

       This film is quite an experience and one that was elevated by the verbal and engaging audience I shared my time with. Like I said earlier, I missed some of the opening credits and shots so I don't what happened there, but I'll explain the first thing I saw. The first act follows a married couple and their daughter as they are on vacation. They arrive at a restaurant where they are greeted by family, I think. The film is entirely in Swedish so subtitles are sometimes challenging. The couple is celebrating the daughter's birthday and celebrates with her in rabbit makeup and costume. They order food and tell the daughter that she can't open her present until tomorrow. The wife unexpectedly starts to have a violent allergic reaction to the pizza she's eating and a helicopter comes to take her to a hospital. The wife is confused since the ingredient she reacted to isn't the first time she has eaten it. The family moves on from this and spends the night in the hospital. The parents wake up early to set up a little birthday cupcake and breakfast for their daughter, but she never wakes up. Fast forward a couple of years and the couple is going on a camping trip and it's obvious that they are still emotionally torn from the death of their daughter. The car ride is silent and awkward and they get into fights over the smallest of things. They arrive at the campsite and set up for the night. During the twilight hours of the morning, the wife has to get up and go pee, but the husband insists that she do it outside and endure the mosquitos rather than under the tent flap. She goes under a tree and 3 crazily dressed strangers emerge from the woods and wreak havoc on the couple.
       Apparently, the first couple of shots I missed showed these strangers so it was surprising. They are what start the Groundhog Day part of the story and the couple must figure out how to escape the endless loop of torture these 3 strangers bring. They are dressed as if they are part of a circus and it adds to the overall eerie atmosphere.
       When I say the audience was into it I mean that we all sighed and shouted "are you kidding me?!" whenever we saw the shot of the women looking out the tent window that meant the day had reset. Everything that happened was unexpected and the film tries its best to keep you interested. It mostly succeeds in that area. It's entertaining to watch them struggle with the task of getting out. The way the day resets is the husband waking up and thinking that the events of the previous cycle were just a dream, but he still takes more and more precautions every time he wakes up, even going as far as running to his car naked. After some turns, the wife starts to experience the cycles and as they both suffer this trial, the audience, at least myself, couldn't help but engage with the planning and strategy. The audience even started to clap and cheer as the guy attempted getting in the car with his wife and just driving away during one of the cycles. A lot more happens towards the end and the cycles start to take a strange turn, but whether they escape or not I will leave for you to watch.
       One of the best aspects of this movie was the tone and atmosphere. It crafts such a creepy, child-esque vibe around the strangers and the music. The best way that it does this is through these puppet show interludes. A couple of times during the film, the story will pause and shift to a narrative told entirely through creepy paper cutouts of bunnies and eerie music. These interludes were my favorite parts of the film and I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. However, they don't really blend well with the rest of the movie. They stand well by themselves, but I think they could've found a way to fit them better in the film's overall narrative.
       The film's biggest issue is pacing. It obsesses itself with long takes that attempt to immerse you more into the story, but they seem unnecessary when looking back at it. The camera does frequently angle itself so that you feel like your in the backseat of the experience and I thought that was nice, but its the lack of dialogue between the couple that keeps this backseat quality from great and ends up feeling like sitting in the backseat when your parents are arguing. In short, it's awkward.
       The poor pacing dilutes the tone it's shooting for and, overall, makes it more of a chore to sit through than a pleasure. It is an experience that I would recommend for at least one viewing, but I can't see myself ever thinking of this movie again in years to come. 5.5/10

The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind

       Chiwetel Ejiofor brings to the screen the story of an African boy who was able to save his village from famine and extinction by building a windmill so that his village could water their crops. This one I was very excited for. My sister had read the book and said that it was a powerful story. 

       William is fascinated with technology and frequents the library, but is forced to stop attending school when his parents are unable to continue affording it. His father at the same time is trying to keep their family afloat since he inherited farmland from his family. At the same time, the film shows the political side of the story and what was going on at the time, especially involving the chief of the village and the president of the country.
       This was my favorite movie of the three that I saw. It's been picked up by Netflix so it'll be out in a couple of months and I highly recommend you watch it. This film actually won an award during the season. It won the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation award for its main character's scientific endeavors. I heard about this before going to see it and it only increased my expectations. My heart was content to know that I was not disappointed. This film deals with more than just William trying to save his village's farming culture. It, of course, touches on how it got to that point, but it also shows the political side of the famine and how the government couldn't help everyone. It also touches on issues within the family, mainly his big sister and her affair with a teacher. It's crazy to see people ration out food for months on end. It was hard to watch this family suffer through low amounts of food, thievery, and loss of family, but William ends up being the ambitious one and I was rooting for his success all the way through.
       I can't remember who said it, but a critic stated that this film had many similarities with, and was somewhat of an African version of, a film titled "October Sky." I would agree, they are both basically the same story. I would, however, argue that the Kamkwamba story has a bit more stakes to it, but they are similar nonetheless. Both are based on true stories and both involve a kid whose father disapproves (William's father eventually) of their scientific endeavors. You rooted for Homer because you didn't want him to end up as a coal miner and waste his future. Its the same for William; you don't want him and his family to starve and have to take drastic measures to survive. The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind is an inspiring "October Sky" tale and you'll have an easy time supporting the main the character and rooting for his accomplishments. 9/10