reviewing the Sci-Fi Shorts session at Worldfest-Houston last April that I was thrilled to learn that Shamrokon, the 34th Eurocon (European Science Fiction Convention), would be hosting the National Irish Science Fiction Film Awards, also known as the Golden Blasters. From 40 entries, the program consisted of ten short film finalists, which were screened on Sunday, August 24 for the convention attendees. A jury picked separate winners for Best Film and Best Script (presumably they read the latter ahead of time). And the viewers got to vote for A udience Choice as well. How fun is that? All three awards were then presented at the convention’s closing ceremonies at 6 p.m. the same day.
Overall, these films were of very high quality. An unexpected side benefit for me this time was that I had many friends in attendance so that we could argue over our favorites afterwards. I counted approximately 75 viewers in the audience, and I discussed the films with at least ten other people. I was truly surprised by how varied our reactions were.
At the end of this post I’ll discuss the film festival itself and mention the films that won awards, but for now, here are my reactions to each film, in the order that they were screened. Please note that these descriptions will contain spoilers.
This was a very short CGI film about a woman aboard a spaceship who is trying to escape a tentacled monster that has dragged off her male colleague. She gets to the escape pod only to be pulled back by one leg, but manages to fight off the monster with some kind of cutting tool, resulting in blood everywhere. As the escape pod then flies away, the ship begins to break up and the film ends, with perhaps a bit of ambiguity –- did that blood infect her with anything before she got away? The animation was excellent, and I was glad to see the woman save herself. I did view this film, however, as more an audition of technique than a self-contained story. And that’s fine -– I would be willing to hire the animator(s)! Malaise incorporated action, facial expressions, and unique “camera” angles, and its creators can certainly play in the big leagues. I did wonder about the title of the film, though, since "malaise" means discomfort or uneasiness without an easily identifiable cause.
This was an amusing and atmospheric little piece about monsters under the bed. Two siblings clamor for a bedtime story, producing a scary-looking book about the Heebie Jeebies. The mother reluctantly reads the story, and then has to coax the kids to bed. The boy then frightens his younger sister by hiding under her bed, after which he’s lectured by their father about “tempting fate.” The Heebie Jeebies probably aren’t real, says the father, but if they are, then pretending to be them is like inviting them in. A short while later, the father then hides under the little boy’s bed, about which the mother is not happy. The film ends with the entire family sleeping in one bed, while the camera pans down slowly to check if the Heebie Jeebies have accepted that invitation....
This film was really quite funny. There were several “only a kid would say that” lines, and the father’s “uh oh, I’m in the doghouse now” expression after his silly prank is hilarious. In fact, I missed several lines throughout the film because they were drowned out by audience laughter. That made me think about television sitcoms, which are always paced for the laugh response -- we either get the dreaded laugh track, or the reactions of a live studio audience. But now I can’t recall whether films in theaters deliberately try to time comedic lines that carefully. It’s something to think about when scriptwriting, or perhaps, more importantly, when directing. But you might also need a few test viewers so you would know when you will or won’t get the hoped-for laughs.
Favorite small detail in this film: the actual picture book that the mother reads aloud, with an “Olden One Books” logo in the upper corner, very reminiscent of Little Golden Books.
This was a nifty little film that started with catchy music, showing a man working alone on some mysterious contraption that he fits to his fingers and up his wrists. Meanwhile, the viewer sees newspaper clippings about failed experimental research and discontinued funding, as well as a rat and a bird in the room. Eventually, we learn that this embittered inventor has created a sort of skeletal framework that allows him to jump-shift short distances. At first I was worried he was planning to stalk a woman he watches coming out of an office building, but then we discover his real intention is to rob a bank, using his device to leap/phase through the vault door. There’s no need to give away the entire ending in this review; it’s sufficient to say that this was creative, well-paced, and interesting, and I heard only positive reactions from the audience.
This film was about a young man who feels compelled to take one last mission for his “General”, in spite of the fact that he has a young woman who is waiting to start their new life together. Some kind of plague has affected a mining colony on Pluto, and the main character is tasked with delivering blood for transfusions. Because the colony needs the blood as quickly as possible, he must travel at a sustained 3.5 gees for ten days, almost certainly a suicide mission due to the damage his body will sustain.
I should start out by saying that many of my fellow audience members really enjoyed this film due to its compelling storyline. Unfortunately, for me the science in this film was too inaccurate to be overlooked. We’re told that robots become unstable at such high g-forces, but it's my understanding that unmanned spacecraft and their onboard computers can withstand much higher g-forces than humans can. In addition, because the man is having trouble breathing and presumably seeing, it’s unrealistic that he would be able to make accurate course corrections using a manual joystick. Finally, I struggled with the visual of the man's entire face covered with blood while his eyes remained perfectly white, since the thin blood vessels in the eyes should burst long before those in the face.
Specific scientific details aside, my main issue with the story is simply that the man didn’t need to go to Pluto in the first place, meaning that the story was set up to create a compelling but to me artificial emotional dilemma. This type of hero sacrifice is often a powerful storytelling device, but I prefer the reason behind the sacrifice to be more believable.
In this animated short, a dog named Stanley is left at home while his family takes off in a minivan. Stanley, however, notices that his boy has left one of his sneakers behind, and he’s determined to deliver it. What Stanley doesn’t know, however, is that the city has been overrun by zombies. He tracks the boy and his mother to a pet store, but the mother has unfortunately already been turned. Stanley finds his boy cowering inside the store and returns the sneaker, and the two make a run for it together.
This film was both humorous and touching. The audience laughed aloud more than once, such as when Stanley accidentally steps on a car key fob, setting off the car alarm and effectively summoning every zombie in the immediate vicinity. Several of my companions felt that Stanley and his boy were clearly doomed in the end, but I take a more optimistic view: early on, we see leafleted notices that the city is an evacuation zone, suggesting to me that humans may have been able to set up a safe zone not too far away. My husband also thinks he saw a notice about a “cure” posted early in the film. (Here is where I wish repeated viewings were possible before writing a review!). In any case, in spite of my usual anti-zombie bias, I enjoyed this film and felt it added a little something new to the sub-genre. The animation was also smooth and professional.
Favorite small detail in this film, or it would have been if I had actually seen it: my husband tells me that one of the zombies was wearing a Team Canada hockey jersey. I wish I had noticed that, but then again, my husband is Canadian!
Of the ten films screened, this is the only one I’ve seen before. It was one of my favorites at Worldfest-Houston, and I thought it held up well to a second viewing. In this story, a young man is conducting research using some kind of alien biological substance that allows him to relive a specific memory over and over. In his case it’s the day that had been perfect up until his beloved tragically drowns. Eventually he notices small differences in the various iterations of the memory, and inevitably begins to wonder if he can change things.
I was surprised to find that several fellow viewers did not like the film nearly as much as my husband and I did. Some remarked that it was too long and too repetitive, and another disliked what she called a “weepy clingy girlfriend” (which she felt we also saw in Adagio). Yet another viewer felt that the imagery was heavy-handed and overly self-conscious. I recognize the basis and validity of these criticisms, but in my mind the film transcended what I felt to be minor flaws. I would have loved slightly tighter editing, especially towards the end, but I found this to be a moving film that was lovely to look at. In addition, Sarah Winter was especially effective (my neighbor in the audience remarked on this as well), with an ability to convey complex emotions by her facial expressions alone.
In Mouse X, a man awakes, disoriented, in an armchair to old-time radio music that quickly fades away. He’s holding a bible in which the pages are marked with dotted lines and X’s. He sees a mouse and then a human-sized mouse hole, where he hides when he realizes someone is about to enter the room. A man wearing laboratory goggles and a cleanroom suit, seeing the now empty chair, drags in another sleeping copy of the main character and deposits him in the chair. The man in the mouse hole observes as the new copy wakes up and does exactly what he did only moments earlier. Before long, there are many copies of the same individual playing out every role in the scenario, including that of the lab-suited "jailor." Desperate to break the cycle, the man tries several doors in the corridor and finally finds something different –- but what?
This film, which was 99% dialogue-free, was intricately worked out and very polished. The tone was creepy, like a good episode of The Twilight Zone, and in fact that’s what this film reminded me of. As accomplished as it was, however, I have to admit that I didn’t have much of an emotional reaction to it. But kudos to the creator for an impressive piece of work.
This is another film that I really need to see again to fully understand what’s going on, because I missed a key element of the story that would have made a difference to my viewing. The story begins with someone paging through computer menus and opening a video file of a rookie mercenary being fitted into a drop suit. The camera is directly on the merc’s face, so all we see for much of the film are the man’s reactions to what he is seeing and hearing. There are some clever exceptions, such as when we see a mechanic’s face reflected in the helmet, and when a comm screen opens up with the dropship pilot’s face. The seasoned mercs tease the rookie for a while over the voice channels, and we learn that he had a fling with the pilot the night before. Finally he drops in to the combat zone where things do not appear to be going well, but it’s very chaotic and difficult to tell what’s happening (which is what I imagine real combat must be like). In the end, we learn that the man is MIA, and the person viewing the video file is searching for a reason to withhold payment to the man’s beneficiaries.
And that was the part I missed. I did get the ending, that the “company” was slimy and was trying to weasel out of payment. But I did not initially understand the film’s opening sequence, with the files labeled as “Forensic Accounting.” Having this bit at both the beginning and end makes it an original framing device for the entire film, as opposed to a bit of novelty at the end, which was how I mistakenly viewed it at first. I still would have had minor issues with the film, as I found it hard to discern the actual dialog amidst all the shouting, and I found the sequences after we left our main character’s first-person POV to look a bit less polished. I also had difficulty caring about the mercs' fate because I didn't know the nature of their mission. But the initial lack of understanding was mine, not the fault of the filmmakers, and I think this film will have wide appeal for fans of first-person shooter games. It even felt a bit like a 4-D theme park attraction (which I mean in a good way), with all the background sound and dialog as well as the first-person visual POV.
The phrase “zombie kangaroos” pretty much says everything you need to know about the plot of this film. Most of my companions got a good laugh from it. It’s a bit of entertainment that does what it set out to do, and there’s a definite audience for it. For me, it was like watching a short version of one of the SyFy Channel’s monster-of-the-week B-movies, which I don’t particularly care for. It’s also, well, zombies. Once again I have to confess to my anti-zombie bias, although in my defense I did finally find a zombie novel recently that I thought was absolutely brilliant. But the reason I thought that book was brilliant was because it offered an interesting and plausible explanation for the phenomenon, and because it added something that felt completely new to the subgenre. Even Steadfast Stanley offered something slightly different with the silly but loyal dog point-of-view. But this film, while it technically offers something new, namely zombie kangaroos, didn’t feel original, and the kangaroo itself looked a bit ridiculous (although no worse than what I’ve seen in SyFy movies while channel surfing). Next week we could have zombie koala bears or zombie armadillos or zombie squirrels, and these still wouldn’t actually add anything to the genre. One of my companions pointed out that zombie storytelling that goes beyond the fluff entertainment level is not about the zombies, but rather about the human response to them, and I completely agree. She, however, was still able to appreciate this particular film for what it was, whereas I had a harder time of it.
In On/Off, a woman who seems to be having a panic attack injects herself in the neck with an unknown substance before calming down and donning a spacesuit. Over an intercom, a man directs the woman, whom we learn is named Meredith, to a specific relay on the outside of the space station they inhabit, and before long she begins having hallucinations that are at first pleasing to her. However, she soon begins to panic again, hearing a child’s voice say that he misses her. (Major spoiler alert) Annoyed, the man aboard the station tells Meredith that the child’s voice is from a recording more than eighty years old, and that she needs to remember that she is no longer human, but rather a machine that he is getting tired of recalibrating. The camera then draws back to show a bald female torso suspended in midair by many cables.
This film, in French with English subtitles, features an extremely realistic space environment. It’s yet another of the festival’s selections that I would like to see again, because I think that knowing Meredith’s true nature going in may reveal subtle cues cleverly planted by the film’s creators. For instance, one of Meredith’s hallucinations during her breakdown is that she is no longer wearing a spacesuit glove, and her skin is therefore exposed to vacuum, which cannot be true if she is actually human. I think this knowledge will also make me more patient with the film’s pacing, which dragged slightly for me when the hallucinations seemed abstract and random. In any event, I like this film more the longer I think about it, although I still find it disappointing that the Meredith-torso looks too much like a flesh-colored version of the Borg Queen from the movie Star Trek: First Contact. I also didn’t find the robot/AI that didn’t know its own nature to be a terribly original concept, but I thought it was heartfelt and very well executed.
Festival coordinator John Vaughan and jurors Maura McHugh and Michael Carroll presented the awards, with Mr. Vaughan noting that they had received 40 entries. (I’m not certain whether that includes both the films themselves and the written screenplay entries.) Ms. McHugh noted the two honorable mentions in the screenplay category (Once a Hero by Neil Chase and The Almost Dead by Stanley B. Eisenhammer) and then announced that the Golden Blaster for Best Screenplay went to absent winner Benjamin A. Friedman for Borders of the Imagination. She read a charming acceptance speech written by Mr. Friedman, whom she mentioned was eighteen years old. The audience was suitably impressed.
The Golden Blaster for Audience Choice went to Steadfast Stanley, which I did not find surprising. First, the film was touching and funny, and second, most of the other entries garnered much more diverse opinions than this one did. I myself had voted for Anamnesis, because it was the one that moved me the most. We each only got one choice, but had we had more, I would have voted for Shift second and Steadfast Stanley third. I can’t say I’m unhappy that Steadfast Stanley won, though. I will say that while I don’t think the festival needs to add more awards, or even to allow the audience more than one choice, I would have liked knowing which films came in second and third in the audience count.
The juried award for Best Film was then presented to On/Off. I was a little surprised by this at first, but the judges mentioned that this was the one film they realized they kept coming back to in their discussions. I can see why that would be.
As for the festival itself, there were only a few small changes I would have suggested. Audience ballots were not handed out until the end of the screenings, and while I was able to take notes the entire time on a portable keyboard, I heard someone say they wish they had had the ballot ahead of time so they could jot down some notes throughout the screenings. I also would have liked more information about the entries just for my own knowledge after the fact, such as the length of the film, the country of origin, and so on. A page in the convention program book devoted to the Golden Blasters did list the finalists for both the film and screenplay categories, but it only noted the titles and the names of the writers/directors with no additional details. I also would have liked more complete information about the number of film entries versus screenplay entries, and perhaps information about next year’s festival. Space-wise, this would have required at least one or two more pages in the convention program book, or perhaps a simple standalone flyer, and I can understand if expense was a factor.
Overall, I enjoyed this festival even more than Worldfest-Houston. The overall quality of the entries was high, and it was fun to share the experience with a larger, enthusiastic audience. A colleague commented that she would love to see works like these nominated for the Hugo Award in the Dramatic Presentation-Short Form category, and I completely agree. We wondered, though, whether some film festival requirements might keep filmmakers from using YouTube or other venues to make their films widely available before they're entered in those festivals. I know that Worldfest-Houston gives preference to world premiere films when making its screening selections, and at the very least expects entries to be making a Texas premiere. If these kinds of rules are common, that might disqualify films that have already appeared freely online. This is something I need to research a little more since I’m still very new to the film festival experience.
If you haven’t been to a film festival, I urge you to give it a try. The filmmakers and the people who put on the festivals obviously pour their hearts into what they do, and they have a lot to share with us.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Monday, July 7, 2014
Sunday, June 1, 2014
I was going to review the Houston Ballet’s mixed repertoire performance titled “Modern Masters”, which I saw twice and which was fabulous, but I’m still a little timid about reviewing ballet and opera because I don’t actually know that much about them, so I’m always second-guessing my opinions. I need to get over that. In the meantime, though, it occurred to me that I have a lot to say about Houston, as we’ve been living here for a little over ten years now. So I’m going to pretend this is a review of Houston, with, um, a lot of long-winded background thrown in. I understand completely if you want to skip all this!
Ballet photos property of Houston Ballet; Katherine Precourt and Simon Ball, and James Gotesky.
Before Houston, we lived in upstate New York for seven years while my husband got his Ph.D. It was gorgeous there, especially in the autumn, and we were happy enough, although more than ready for him to finish the degree and get on with his career. I’d suspected that we’d end up in Houston because NASA was the logical place for him, and then we found out he’d gotten a one-year post-doc fellowship here. I’d assumed we would keep renting, but everyone in Houston advised us to just go ahead and buy a house because the mortgage would be cheaper than renting (plus we had some pets that might have made it hard to rent). We came out in August to look for houses, and I remember that as the plane landed, the pilot came on to tell us it was “only” about 105 degrees outside. I remember turning to my husband and saying “You’ve brought us to hell.”
As it turns out, house-hunting moves quickly in Texas. I was accustomed to east coast real estate; I knew from friends and families that you might make an offer and hope to close within three months or so. Since we planned to move in December, we thought house-hunting in August made sense. Our real estate agent, when she found out we weren’t coming until December, told us to come back in mid-October, because people here want to close in 30 days. All well and good, but my husband would be deep in his dissertation revisions by then and wouldn’t be able to come back with me. So I got to (make that “had to”) choose our first house all by myself. Fortunately, my mom was kind enough to come along to offer a second opinion and moral support.
I still love our house. Houses are cheap here. If we were living on the east coast today, we probably still wouldn’t have a house.
So, Paul and I had an agreement that we would try out Houston for that first year. If, towards the end of that year, we liked it here well enough, we would try to see whether he could get his post-doc renewed.
After our first three months in Houston, I told Paul that we didn’t need to wait the year, because I was planning to stay with or without him. OK, that was an exaggeration -- I wouldn’t really have let him leave without me. But I knew very quickly that I wanted to stay here. Fortunately, he got his post-doc renewed for a second year and then a third, which is the maximum. Then he was allowed to stay at NASA if he could provide his own salary through grant money, so he did that for a few years. Then he became an American citizen (he was born in England and grew up in Canada), and then he was hired as a civil servant. So here we are ten years later.
I probably should eventually talk about Houston, though, shouldn’t I? Here are the reasons I love living here:
• Inexpensive housing compared to everywhere else we’ve lived. Our house is honestly a little bigger than two people need, but I don't mind because we’ve filled it with books. Plus it has an open floor plan downstairs which is great for giving parties.
• Cost-of-living in general. Not everything is cheaper here, but lots of things are. I laugh when Houstonians complain about property taxes, because I find them quite low – and we don’t have state income tax here either.
• The arts. They’re amazing here, and we’ve barely even scratched the surface. We’ve had season tickets to the Houston Ballet for about seven years now, and to the Houston Grand Opera for about three years. Some years we’ve gotten mini-packages to the Houston Symphony as well. I’m not an expert, but I think these are world-class companies. My only regret is that the Houston Ballet doesn’t get the amount of recognition I think it deserves – while the house gets pretty full for classics such as Swan Lake, the mixed rep performances are woefully underattended, which is too bad because they’re often more dynamic and creative than the traditional ballets. For those who prefer musicals, there’s TUTS, or Theater Under the Stars, which hosts the traveling Broadway shows. There are tons of other theaters, plus free outdoor performances by the ballet, opera, symphony, and all sorts of other groups.
Another thing about the arts is that here, they don’t take long to get to. If it’s not rush hour, we can be at the ballet or opera within 25-30 minutes of leaving our house. This is opposed to where I grew up in New Jersey, where going in to New York City for any performance was an all-day, incredibly expensive affair, consisting of car to train to taxi to dinner to (possibly another taxi to) theater to taxi to train to car.
• The diversity. When we told friends we were moving to Texas, many of them said hopefully, “To Austin, right? I’ve heard Austin is really cool….” “No,” we had to tell them. “Houston.” But it turns out Houston is pretty cool too. We were worried that we’d be surrounded by nothing but the famous Texas conservatism, but we needn’t have worried, because it turned out that many of the people in the circles we move in are either imports, or they come from Houston or Texas but did not automatically accept the conservatism they grew up with. The younger NASA crowd (by which I mean the post-Apollo-era folks), the library crowd (that’s my day job field), and the science fiction crowd (the field to which I aspire) – none of these groups are dominated by a conservative mindset.
Plus our mayor, Annise Parker, is the first openly lesbian mayor of any major U.S. city. How cool is that? She’s pretty popular here. She just married her long-time partner, too, in the wake of certain recent court decisions. Gay rights are extremely important to me, so I’m glad to live in a part of Texas that’s comparatively progressive in that area.
There’s also cultural diversity. A lot of different cultural groups hold annual festivals to showcase their heritage, and when I ride the light rail or am at work in the Medical Center, I'm pleased to see many cultural backgrounds represented.
• Restaurants. I wouldn’t consider us to be foodies by any stretch of the imagination, but we do like nice restaurants. Actually, some of the best food we’ve found is at the ballet and opera, where Elegant Events by Michael provides catered Prix fixe dinners on performance nights. But we have a favorite sushi restaurant, and there’s lots of Italian, and you can generally find everything in between. Actually, this is one area in which we haven’t explored nearly enough, but then it can be an expensive hobby. We haven’t explored the food truck scene yet either. We need to do something about that.
• The job market. This isn’t meant to diminish the plight of many people I know who have been laid off in the last few years, but I do think the situation is better in Houston than elsewhere. Amazingly, I was able to line up a librarian job in Houston before we even left the state of New York, and I’ve been fortunate enough not to face layoffs in my line of work. And I can also say this about my various employers: they’ve all been very understanding and generous when it comes to hurricane evacuations. They do not expect us to stick around if we need to get ourselves somewhere more safe.
• The three H’s: heat, humidity, and hurricanes. We expected the heat and humidity. We did not expect that our neighborhood would become a mandatory evacuation zone twice in our first ten years here. The first time was Hurricane Rita, which was a nightmare. It was such a short time after the Katrina disaster in New Orleans that almost the entire city of Houston tried to leave. We were fortunate in that we had friends in Ft. Worth willing to take us and our animal menagerie in, but it took us 20 straight hours (for what’s normally a 4.5 hour drive) in two cars with freaked out animals in 100+ degree heat and not knowing if we could refuel at any point. I hope never to experience that again. Fortunately, Houston learned from the experience, and our Hurricane Ike evacuation took only 10 hours, plus we felt more confident we could get help and fuel if needed. We did need a new roof after Ike, though….
• Flat real estate market in many areas. Houses don’t just start cheap, they stay cheap, meaning that you can live in a house for ten years and be lucky to sell it for a smidge more than what you paid, and that only if you put some real effort into it. There are some trendy areas of Houston where your house will appreciate noticeably, but the Clear lake area isn’t one of them. I’m OK with this, but it probably would mean we’d have difficulty buying a house anywhere else in the country if we had to move.
• The traffic. Ye gods, the traffic. While house-hunting, we knew that Paul would work at NASA but didn’t know where in Houston I would end up. We figured at least one of us should have an easy commute, so we settled in the Clear Lake area. I’ve since worked all over Houston, and am currently at Medical Center. I feel fortunate that I can take public transportation, because I think it’s the right thing to do, it’s cheaper than driving and parking, and it’s slightly less stressful than driving myself through rush hour. But it takes forever. I’m still spending a daily total 2.25 to 2.5 hours per day commuting, and that’s after much experimenting to find the shortest route. Driving my own car would take less time, but would add to the stress and expense.
• Politics. Well, it is still Texas. Let’s put it this way: when we arrived here, we were in Tom DeLay’s district. ’Nuff said.
• Lack of ice hockey. OK, I admit this isn’t a problem for most people, but when you’re married to a Canadian, and learned to love hockey yourself while attending the University of North Dakota, you’re going to miss live hockey. We did have the minor league Houston Aeros, but they moved to Iowa last year. Rumor has it that the NBA Rockets owner didn’t really care to share his arena with the hockey team. We do have major league football, baseball, basketball, and soccer. It boggles my mind that we now have no professional hockey, not even minor league, when we’re in the fourth largest city in the United States.
• Lack of natural beauty. There are certain areas around Houston where you can drive for miles and see nothing but refineries, and then you hit the stretches with nothing but car dealerships and strip malls…. We haven’t explored the hill country yet, but I think you have a get a ways from Houston before you start seeing a lot of pretty scenery. The second half of the drive from Houston to Austin is quite nice, but Houston itself is not a place I would move to I wanted to be inspired by the landscape.
• Terrible driving. Not even the police can be bothered to use turn signals around here. I have gone through traffic lights when they’re dark, dark yellow (mainly because I knew I'd get rear-ended if I stopped) and had four cars continue to turn left behind me.
I'm sure that the minute I post this, I'm going to think of something else to say about Houston, but for now, let me end by saying the good far outweighs the bad. I'll end with one more thing I love about Houston: the skyline. I've gotten to see it from almost every possible angle, and it makes me feel happy and optimistic every time I see it.
Monday, April 7, 2014
The session was introduced by one of the festival organizers, who said (if I recall correctly) that some 1400 films had been entered into the festival. There are so many that the festival cannot even screen all of the winners in the various categories.
This Sci-Fi Shorts session consisted of five films:
Anamnesis– Written and directed by Ben Goodger; 24:45 minutes.
Of the five films we saw, this one had the most beautiful cinematography. It never hurts filming on the Scottish coast, but scenery aside, there was some really beautiful camera work and imagery. In this story, a young scientist is experimenting with a memory retrieval technique that lets him relive the day his girlfriend died, because right up until her death, it was the most perfect day. Unsurprisingly, he becomes addicted to the memory. He begins to notice small changes in each iteration, and begins to wonder if he might change things on a larger scale.
I felt that this was very well done, and would have changed only two minor things. The memory recreation was apparently caused or enabled by a meteorite with a slick oily black substance that seemed to be alive. This wasn’t really explored, which I was fine with, but our attention was directed there numerous times. The tar-like substance reminded me of the sentient tar pit that killed Tasha Yar on Star Trek: The Next Generation, and the way the substance kept bubbling up looked almost muppet-like, for lack of a better term. It’s the only thing that threw me out of the film because it wasn’t integrated into the storyline, and it didn’t have the same polished feel as everything other element. The other extremely minor issue was the pacing. Any time you repeat a scene or imagery several times (which of course makes sense in a story about memory), you risk making the viewer impatient if they decide you've done it one too many times. This had one or even two repeats more than I felt I needed. It certainly wasn’t egregious, but I felt that it kept the film from being as perfect as it might otherwise have been.
Here I’ve written a long paragraph about two minor criticisms, and not nearly enough about how good the film actually was. It was very good. Emotionally powerful, thought-provoking, well-acted, and beautifully filmed.
The Sound of Trains – Written and directed by Travis Champagne and Jordan Bradley; 13 minutes.
This one didn’t quite work for me. Daniel Baldwin plays a rural loner who discovers green slime on his hand while chopping wood, then receives a mysterious visit from two black-suited strangers who warn him that he must not reveal what he’s seen (except he hasn’t really seen anything), or they will return for him.
(SPOILERS AHEAD) He then doesn’t tell anyone what he’s seen, and they return for him anyway.
My problem with this film is that there is nothing fresh or original about the alien abduction scenario, and there’s that huge hole in the plot logic. The main character never tells anyone that something odd happened to him. Heck, he never even sees anyone he can tell. We’re given no reason to care about the character. Also, while I thought grizzly Daniel Baldwin looked and acted the part perfectly, the actors playing the two visitors were trying so hard to be cryptic and mysterious that it was almost funny when it wasn’t meant to be.
Agent Killer: Origins – Written and directed by Cesar Encalada; 15 minutes.
For this film, I could see that the cast and crew put a lot of love and work into it, but there were a variety of problems. Some of these can be explained, I think, by viewing this not as a film but as the prologue to a video game. If that is the intention, some of these problems are certainly understandable. But as a film, it views as though it came from young artists who have spent their lives playing video games without actually reading stories or learning about sophisticated storytelling. Don’t get me wrong; I think a lot of video games have incredible storytelling, but those are the games that go way beyond creating a flashy world and a somewhat contrived background for a single hero (or possibly anti-hero) character. Also, although I feel a little petty bringing it up, multiple grammatical errors in the on-screen opening text, well, they just can’t be allowed to happen. Even the film’s program book description has a problem, describing the Colosius as “a humanitarian xenophobic alien race that has conquered Earth and enslaved humans.” I have to assume they meant humanoid, not humanitarian.
That aside, the film has some impressive special effects. The main character wakes up in some kind of lab or tech facility, knowing that he has to fight his way out. He dispatches a bunch of guards and eventually comes face-to-face with a real adversary, who delivers a lot of trite dialog in an overly dramatic fashion. The fight scene was fairly well choreographed with some nice special effects, particularly the glowing movement under the skin when the two fighters were under stress. Unfortunately, however, much of the fighting sequences came across as derivative of the Matrix movies, particularly when the (not-main-character-so-presumably) bad guy pauses in the middle of the fight to crack his neck to either side a la Agent Smith.
(SPOILERS AHEAD) Eventually the main character fights his way out in spite of being stabbed, and ends up on a beach watching spaceships (again, good effects) fly over, then ruminating on what his role in this world should be. This ending voice over goes on for much too long, making clichéd statements and asking clichéd questions.
I have to admit I wonder whether this film was screened in part because its creators were local.[*] I'm guessing that it won an award, perhaps in a technical category. Then, when the festival chooses which award winners to screen, I think they might give a slight edge to local talent, which is understandable and nice for us. So I feel a little harsh by commenting on things that perhaps weren’t the qualities meant to be showcased, and because I’m treating this as a film when it really might have been meant as a video game rather than a film prologue. But I only have the film itself to go on. What I do think is great is that the creator and the crew got out there and created something, and put it out there for the world to see. There were some really nice effects, and yes, the universe they created could certainly make a popular video game. I hope they’ll continue to create, because they have some great potential.
I Remember the Future – Written by Zane Pyper, Klayton Stainer, Michael Burstein; directed by Klayton Stainer; 26:32 minutes.
I about fell over when I realized this movie was shot on location in Melbourne, Australia, because I would have thought it was shot in Brooklyn, and that the two main actors were American. I knew this was based on Michael Burstein’s short story of the same title, and I vaguely remembered Michael saying online at some point that someone had approached him about turning the story into a short film, but I’d missed the fact that it was an Australian film student. I'm not sure which surprised me more: the "Australian" part or the "student" part, because I can definitely say that there was nothing “student” about this film.
The main character, Abe (Reg Gorman) is an old man looking backwards over a long career writing science fiction. Now, however, he’s faced with the onset of dementia, just as his somewhat estranged daughter informs him she is moving to the other side of the country. His tense conversations with his daughter are interspersed with his trips down memory lane, as he envisions scenes and characters from the many worlds he created in his novels. I especially liked that the scenes looked the way he would have imagined them when writing for the pulps, rather than the way a young writer might imagine them now. Abe tells his daughter that he’d always felt like he had a connection to the future, that his ideas weren’t his own but that they were somehow real and he’d simply been able to tune into them. This angers his daughter, because she feels it’s no excuse for having been an emotionally absent father.
I have to confess that I haven’t read the original story, for which I’m glad in a way because I got to see the film completely fresh. The story itself is satisfying, especially to writerly types, and this film was made with skill and loving care. One sequence, showing two of Abe’s space-suited characters exploring an ancient abandoned library with paper, is absolutely stunning. (In fact, my husband wondered in what library it was shot, while I said I assumed it was CGI….) The movie was well-acted, and I loved that Tiffany Lyndall-Knight, who played the daughter, had another role as well. (This actress also played the Hybrid in the new incarnation of Battlestar Galactica.) I did wish a little bit that the father-daughter relationship wasn’t quite so strained, because it felt a bit like a statement that a writer couldn’t create such rich fictional worlds without being emotionally absent to his or her family. I know better than to assume the author was actually making that statement; that's just how it came through my personal lens. While the conclusion was a little more sentimental than I would normally prefer, it felt right for this story and it resulted in a perfect last line, delivered perfectly.
I Remember the Future is the reason I became aware of the festival in the first place, and the reason I went. This one film was worth making the trip across town for just by itself; the fact that I got to see a couple of other really good short films too was icing on the cake.
Oh, and the closing credits were fabulous! They reminded me of the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes movies.
Where the Red Fox Lies – written and directed by Jeff Ray; 35:56 minutes.
This was a remarkably accomplished film in every aspect: storytelling, visuals, camera work, acting, effects…. A young woman and her new husband drive to an abandoned ranch looking for her younger sister, who disappeared some time before, and who did not surface for their parents' funeral following a mysterious and horrible accident. The older sister resents that the younger one left her to deal with all of the accident's aftermath. The younger sister is clearly suffering from psychological trauma and is unwilling or unable to discuss what's troubling her. Eventually, the problem becomes apparent to all.
If you read the description of the film you'll know what's going on, but I had the advantage of going in blind, so I got to see the plot revealed at the pace the writer/director intended. I hesitate to put any spoilers here; let me just say that it's a great speculative fiction plot. (I say "speculative fiction" because it blends science fiction and horror, while still remaining a moving personal and emotional drama.)
For the most part I felt this film moved at the appropriate pace, but it did sag a tiny bit for me towards the end, such that I stopped paying attention to reflect that the older sister and her husband were a little slower in figuring things out than they might have been. On the other hand, humans are great at denial, so maybe that's what was going on. There is also a gorgeous montage of scenes at the end that goes on a bit longer than it needs to. But this is a very minor nitpick as far as this film goes.
This was a couple of hours well spent. Three of these five films really impressed me with their storytelling and execution. I definitely plan to do some research and see a lot more of the festival next year. In addition to Sci-Fi Shorts, I'd like to try out the Comedy Shorts, which I have to imagine will be a blast. I hope to get together a good-sized group of friends and science fiction enthusiasts next year – more of us need to know about this.
[* I knew this one was local because the person introducing the program mentioned it. It didn't occur to me until writing this to look the rest up and I now have: The Sound of Trains was also local (Spring, TX), and Where the Red Fox Lies was semi-local (Duncanville, up by Dallas)] Read more!