I’ve written about this in previous years, but thought I’d revise my steps in preparing for MIFF each year.

So, how does one choose what films to see at MIFF? There are many different ways – some people I know turn up on the day and wander into whatever takes their fancy. Others pick a theatre and stick to that venue for a stretch to avoid the uphill sprint to a new venue between films.

I don’t really do either. I plan, plan and then do more planning. It’s not very wild or exciting, I know, but my time is limited, and I don’t want to miss a gem due to lack of proper analysis. This especially is the case this year, as due to family commitments, this year I’ll have much less than time to be sitting in the cinema.

So, here’s what I do, in case you’re looking for a system yourself.

1. Get a copy of the Melbourne International Film Festival program guide. These can be found all around the place at the moment – my local VideoEzy and cafe both have a pile of them. If nothing else, you can find one at any of the cinemas showing MIFF films, or at the MIFF box office at the Forum Theatre.

2. In the middle is a Film & Screening Index. I tear this out as it will be with me for the entire festival

3. In the Index, I hunt down all the lower-case titles and cross them off. They’re short films, and I don’t dislike them, but I’m not going to go and see a main feature based on what short film is showing before it.

4. Now comes the long and arduous task of ranking the films on offer. For each film, I look at the description to get a sense of whether I’d like it or not. If it looks potentially interesting I will also search the film on any combination of imdb.com, apple.com/trailers and rottentomatos.com. If I’ve seen something by the director that I enjoyed at a previous MIFF it’s more likely to rank highly. There are also some things I keep an eye out for, which I went into more detail in a post from my 2005 MIFF blog, but in essense:
* ACMI only session means it may be a low quality film (very low budget, or shot on video)
* I am wary of words like ‘experimental’, ‘dream-like’, and ‘visual code’. There are definitely people into these types of films, but I still like to have some kind of plot (even if not excessive).
* If it’s a South Korean film, it may well be brilliant (some of my fave films in previous year are from there), but if it’s some kind of futuristic police drama where the guide’s entry is a confused outline of the plot points rather than a description of the film, it probably means it is not worth the time.
* If the film is a documentary, I recognise that many were (or should have been) filmed for TV rather than the big screen, and most of the best usually are shown on SBS within the 12 months following MIFF. Therefore, I tend to only watch the most interesting (sounding) documentaries, or those where the large screen add to the experience.

5. I rank each film from 1 to 4. ‘1’ means ‘must see, can’t miss, no matter what’. There are usually around 4-10 of these each year for me. ‘2’ means ‘definitely want to see it’. ‘3’ is ‘won’t see it unless someone persuades me that it’s worthwhile’. And, ‘4’ is a very special rating to signify a film that I won’t see. I try to keep an open mind about films, so avoid a ‘4’ where possible. But, I’ve seen enough (two) of Andrew Bujalski’s films to know that I should avoid them, so he’ll get a ‘4’, and not liking horrors, I’ll usually cross them off, unless it’s a funny/dark humour one (like last year’s Dead Snow). I mark the rating I give next to every film in the Film & Screening Index so that I can quickly tell what I suspected a film might be like when I’m trooping around the city and talking to others about their highlights.

6. Once I’ve ranked all the films, it’s time to start planning the timetable. I fill in timeslots for the ‘1’s first, and then the ‘2’s. This is a fine art, as there are usually only two sessions for each film, and there are always some conflicts. Sometimes a film needs to be dropped. I’ll give a preference to seeing films on weekdays at the 1pm or 3pm session where possible, since the cinemas are a little quieter then. In previous years I would choose the nicer cinemas over the worse ones, but now I’m less fussy. That said, I’ll avoid too many Kino -> Forum -> Kino type runs. I used to often book a session prior to a popular/sold out one to get a good seat, as you can stay in the cinema between films. However, with the special queue for MIFF members, that’s not so important now. If your time is worth anything at all, the MIFF membership is worth it just to avoid long queues and worse seats.

7. I try and be mindful to give a couple of breaks during the festival to avoid burning out in week two. And, I try to plan any social/family commitments before this step to avoid conflicts. Oh, and I consult with my wife and my friends who are going to see if any of us have chosen the same films, so we can try and see them together. A great way to track the films you and your friends plan to see is to use Daniel Shepard’s awesome Film Festival Programmer – it lets you see what others are seeing, as well as offering an easy way to bulk add your films to the MIFF online ticket shopping cart.

8. Finally, when the grid looks like it’s in place, I book all the tickets using MIFF’s fantastic (and it really is!) online booking system.

9. Note that while I do plan all of the above, it’s not always right. One year I forgot that I had a commitment on a Saturday afternoon/evening, which required lots of rescheduling. I also lose energy at some point during the festival and tend to start skipping days or late sessions. Or, I might get a burst of energy, or hear of a film that is meant to be brilliant, and then add a couple more. So, yeah, I’m not entirely inflexible. 🙂

10. Forgot to mention, it’s worth following the #MIFF hashtag on twitter to get a sense of what others are seeing and liking. Be careful of spoilers though.

Easy, huh?

LOUISE-MICHEL
3/10
The plot to this comedy sounded good – the story of a group of women who pool their redundancy payouts to hire a hitman to kill their ex-boss. However the style of comedy was one that for me just annoyed. I walked out after about 30 minutes, not seeing the humour in it at all.

THE HURT LOCKER
8/10
I was a little unsure about whether this film would be worthwhile. I’ve seen a couple of films about the Iraq war, and generally never been entirely enthralled with them. However, The Hurt Locker was an excellently made film which was a festival highlight. It’s about a unit in Iraq that dedicates itself to investigating potential bombings, and where possible defusing them before they explode. It really sucks you in, and makes you feel like you’re there, experiencing the pressure with the characters. Good stuff.

DEAD SNOW
8/10
I’m not really a fan of Zombie films, but I can say of the ones I’ve seen, this is probably my favourite. Mind you, I’ve not seen any Romero ones, nor the Evil Deads. I’m not much of a horror film goer. This is a gruesome comedy about a bunch of young Norwegians who go up to an isolated cabin in the mountains for a ski weekend. All the cliches are ticked here, including the old man who frightens them on their first evening and then goes on to tell them about the dark presence in the woods. Turns out that a bunch of Nazis never quite died, and are still pretty upset. Lots of blood splattering and spilling of intestines, but overall a good balance of laughs that leaves you happily entertained.

CHOCOLATE
Review to come

FOOD, INC.
5/10
Sorry Food Inc, but you were the straw that broke this camel’s back. During this film, I wanted to yell at the screen, which I suppose is a good thing in that it’s inciting a strong reaction in a viewer, but for me, I was doing so in disappointment of an opportunity lost. I think there’s a real story to be told here about the food industry, but I’m so tired of having documentaries that effectively come across as a liberal/left wing version of an ‘A Current Affair’ type story. It shouldn’t be necessary to do this in order to get their point across, but in Food Inc they really try and ram it down your throat.

For example, in one part of the film, they show us the story of a hispanic family who apparently can’t afford to buy decent food and are forced to eat $1 hamburgers at McDonalds. They show a scene of them wandering like they’re lost around a supermarket with comments along the lines of ‘Broccoli for $1.19? We can’t afford that!’. Are you eff star star kay eye en gee kidding me? Add to this, the father has diabetes at least in part because he eats so much junk food, which then costs the family hundreds of dollars in medicine.

They also found a mother whose son died from ecoli poisoning. As a father, it horrifies me to think of losing my child so I have total sympathy for her and her loss, but it came across as just another desperate measure to convince us in a direction that didn’t need such drama. A slight case of overbombing.

Oh yeah, and in the beginning of the film, we’re told that four multi-national corporations dominate the US food industy, but this information is presented, as if we’re meant to spit, based on those facts alone. Maybe we ought to be, but a) I don’t think that being a multinational corporation immediately means you’re an organisation with poor ethics, and b) splitting a large industry between four companies sounds a whole lot better than what’s been going on with the computer software industry for years…

I’m not a right wing thinker, but this documentary is so biased in its presentation that even I wanted to reject it as overdone. That said, there are points that still stand true – corporations respond to demand. If consumers demand to know where their food comes from, and start making better choices, such as purchasing organic produce and meat from farms that respect the animals (at least prior to slaughter) then we can change things. I know that I’ll be doing some research into milk now to see exactly what the difference is between the Puras and the Organic options, and also into the meat I buy when I do. (yeah, sorry, I’d love to be vegetarian, but bacon tastes too good).

BLACK DYNAMITE
9/10
And on the a lighter side of the film, we have Black Dynamite, a brain-resting comedy that is one of my highlights for the festival. Like ‘The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra’ from MIFF 2004, which was a glorious and hilarious tribute to b-grade 1950s sci-fi flicks, Black Dynamite nods towards the Blaxploitation films of the 1970s. I’ve not seen (m)any blaxploitation films, but you don’t need to know the genre inside out to have a ball. It’s about a real badass guy named Black Dynamite who is on a mission to find out who killed his brother and why. Set design is great, and the send-ups are done to perfection. I can’t wait to see it again when my brain needs a rest. Champagne comedy! Or, should I say ‘Anaconda, oooooooooh Comedy’?

IN THE LOOP
8/10
Based around the UK comedy ‘The Thick Of It’, (which apparently may be getting re-made into a US show soon), this political comedy was another highlight for me. Fast talking and quick-paced, it follows the story of a British minister who as a result of a botched radio interview, winds up becoming involved in talks between the US and the UK about invading Iraq. Peter Capaldi steals the show with his character, a foul mouthed Scot who doesn’t take shit from anyone. A real role model for us all :). If you think you’d like the result of mixing The Office, The West Wing and Yes Minister into one show, don’t miss it.

THE EXPLODING GIRL
7.5/10
When I booked this session, I wondered to myself whether the name of this film was a nod to The Cure’s b-side ‘The Exploding Boy’. I’m still not sure where the reference comes from, but this film was great in a low-key way. It’s about a girl who returns home to New York City from college for her summer break. She catches up with a (male) friend who she’s known for years, and the film goes on to show what they get up to. The story progresses as she has intermittent and somewhat awkward phone conversations with her boyfriend who is in his own hometown. A lot of it feels ad-libbed and the pacing is fairly languid, but there’s enough story to make it enjoyable. Imagine Mutual Appreciation, Funny Ha Ha or Wendy & Lucy (all shown at previous years of MIFF), but done right. The lead actress looks a little like Zooey Deschanel and looked really familiar, but wasn’t someone I’d seen before.

35 SHOTS OF RUM
6/10
A French film about a father who works on the railway. After his long days at work, he returns home to his adult daughter that shares his apartment. As the story unfolds, we find out more about the neighbours in their block and thus this ‘slice of life’ story goes. It was a nicely done film, but seemed a little unsure of what it was trying to say.

ART & COPY
5/10
A documentary about advertising which in itself was pretty much an advertisement for the advertising industry. In this film the subjects try to claim some credibility, suggesting that they’re helping the population and can hit levels of near-art (if not art itself) in their work. It was very well put together, and quite interesting, but ultimately the reality for me is that for every ‘good’ advert or billboard there are thousands of shite ones. I’d agree that for example that the iPod billboards are visually great and near-art, but we’re still stuck with erectile dysfunction ones. Worth a watch if it comes on TV.

TONIGHT OR NEVER
7/10
My ‘n’th film of the festival that stars Anna Karina, and admittedly, my favourite so far. This was the first starring role that Anna had which wasn’t directed by Godard. As always Anna Karina looked great :). It’s set in an apartment over one evening where a small party is held amongst a few friends, and the conversations that take place. In parts happy, others sad, others angry. It floats by but has enough plot to keep you watching. The print wasn’t very good quality, but I’m glad I caught it.