RF Exclusive: Kim Noonan | TVIFF 2011

Over the weekend at the 2011 Temecula Valley International Film and Music Festival, I had an opportunity to sit down and talk with a number of filmmakers about their film and their work. This week, I'll be posting up my interviews with them, who touch upon not just their film, but also the filmmaking process, as well.

For my first interview, Dir. Kim Noonan, director of the short film Pepper, which played at TVIFF 2011. If you read my post last week before the festival, Pepper was one of the films I had put on my TVIFF 2011 "Watch List" and I am excited to have this opportunity to talk with Dir. Kim, who had a busy weekend with his film.

Anthony Pang | Where did the idea for the film come from?

Kim Noonan | Well, I lived in Echo Park. Everybody there, essentially, is single. It's LA, like everyone, not married, like me, single. Everyone who is single and live in LA, a lot of them have pets and they are mostly dogs. It seems like instead of being married, they're married to their pets and their dogs. They have this special relationship with their dogs. I remember walking and running a lot in Elysian Park, which is in that area, and seeing a lot of dogs, abandoned dogs, walking around on their own. A lot of them were hit and on the ground. I've always wondered what is the right thing to do in that situation, because if you hit a human being, you call 911. If you hit a dog, all the moral responsibility is on your shoulders, and that kind of sucks, to tell someone you hit their dog. I thought that might make for a compelling story.

AP | Have you ever hit a dog yourself or been in a similar situation?

KN | No, but my sister hit a cat when I was in high school and she nearly killed us after she hit it. I'll never forget it, she turned her head around and was not paying attention to the road, and I'm like "Go, it's just a cat!" And that was my whole thing about this film, it's just a dog. But is it really just a dog? Because these people have a special relationship with their dog. I don't get it, but they get it. And there is animal people that get animals and are into PETA and things like that. I don't get it, but they have this special connection with pets that I'll never know. That's one the things I wanted to explore. And also, explore my point of view that thinks it is just a dog or cat that you hit.

AP | Has any animal lovers responded to your film?

KN | No, believe it or not, surprisingly, a great deal of women have loved this film. It's so weird. Most of the women who have contacted me love this film because they get the girl's perspective and the guy's perspective. I think it has to do a lot with the good acting in it.

AP | Now, this is not your first film, right? [KN: No] What did you learn while making this film and what would you do different next time?

KN | Contracts. If you're a filmmaker, you gotta have more contracts. I kind of just put this together as a passion piece and we were just offered distribution by Shorts HD and iTunes. For some reason, and usually I'm responsible and organized, I forgot to do the contracts. That's one of the things I regret not doing.
The one thing I really learned was that you can't really take things personally. Whatever people say, you have to keep moving forward. You can't really think too much about what people say or think. If someone is trying to be a nuisance on your set, you can't give it any attention, you have to think 'this film can't suck.' Keep working on what's moving it forward and what is important.

AP | What was the most difficult challenge and how was it resolved?

KN | The most difficult challenge, so far, is in post. It's always going to be in your sound. An independent filmmaker, you don't have twenty-, fifty-, fifty-five thousand dollars to close off a whole block and tell everyone to be quiet. You're dealing with planes, helicopters, school buses driving by. I remember when I wrote my first short film, my producer said you're never going to get these locations. Be smart about your locations, make sure they are not filled with a lot of people, make sure they are small and intimate, and ask your friends to be extras. I'm like, wow, that's really smart and it made me think about it. If I would advise any filmmaker, it would be always just to simplify things.

AP | We've talked about the difficult stuff. Now, what about the best part of the process?

KN | The best part is that we've sold out our first three screenings, and we played at Holly Shorts and LA Shorts and just killed it. For some reason, probably because of the actors, people really empathize with their situation. And even though Chuck (plays Nate, the lead actor) is such a punk, who does everything wrong thing, people laugh at it. I feel like they would be doing the same thing if they saw this girl, who was distraught and so overwhelmed by her dead dog. And that's what has been so gratifying, honestly, that people got it and then are able to laugh about it. Taking a tragic situation and being able to laugh about it.

AP | Now that you've done a couple of films, what would you say is your approach to filmmaking is?

KN | There's never going to be a single approach. If anything I hate, I don't like drama freaks on the set. If there's going to be one drama freak, that would be me, and that is it. [laugh]
Really though, I equate it with sports. I've always been good at sports and I always think I know what is right for the team. I feel like I am just the head coach, and I have my DP, my sound people and everyone around me. They are my coaching staff, and my players are the actors. If we prepare hard enough and they believe in what I think can get them there, then we're golden. If they trust me, that we're going to prepare enough, and not worry about the win but just worry about the process, we'll do it. I spend 80% of my time with my actors and the story. I care about what things look like, but not as much as I care about what is honest and truthful. That's to God's truth, I care so much what my actors are doing, I love what they are doing.

AP | I liked the point about the football team, it's a good analogy. On a lighter note, what is the most recent film you saw and that you liked a lot?

KN | [Thinking] Hmm...Well, maybe I am prejudice, but I think, honestly, one of the films I've seen is Bridesmaids, because it hilarious and Dana Powell, who is in my film, plays a stewardess. It's not only that, but do you think Sandra Bullock or Kate Hudson is a comedic genius? No, you put really good women who do comedy in a movie and that was the coolest thing. You put real women who aren't that attractive but are funny and you just let them be unattractive and that was what was attractive. You let them show a little rib, be ugly, be vulnerable, be stupid, and that was funny. It was a well-written script and that was one of the funnier movies I've seen.

AP | Alright, last question, also on a lighter note. First person you ran coffee for?

KN | I've never ran coffee for anyone.

AP | Never?

KN | No, I haven't...

AP | Congratulations. [laugh]

KN | Yeah, haven't ran coffee. I've had people run coffee for me, unfortunately, but no, hopefully I'll never be in that position. BUT I'm always nice to person, though....

[laugh]

AP | That's good, that probably makes you a nice director to work with.

Favorite Film Series [Wk:4]

It has been two weeks since I've done a FFS, but here I am again. Hopefully, you've had an opportunity to watch previous weeks' films.

This week's film will deviate in genre from previous weeks. There are good, quality comedy films, and they can indeed be genuinely funny, regardless of how formal film criticism tries to suck the life of them (if they address them at all). Nonetheless, comedy is a difficult genre to do well and most quality comedy films are complex structures. Unlike the dime-a-dozen forgettable slapstick comedy seen on most mainstream screens, quality comedy films have considerable depth and subtlety that requires an discerning audience.

Here is this week's film.

Big Shot's Funeral (2001) Dir. Xiaogang Feng

Why this film: Before Morgan Spurlock decided to sell-out, Xiaogang Fang's comedy film had already explored in narrative form the encroachment (or development, if you wish) of mass advertising and marketing campaigns on public life. While Spurlock's film exploits the question of entertainment-as-advertisement-vehicle when the question has already been answered in the public consciousness, Xiaogang Fang's film, made a decade earlier, explores the question through some extreme (and at the time, seemingly improbable) conclusions. Though I doubt anyone would say Fang's film is prophetic, though it must seem like that in retrospect, the film might be considered a marker from which we in the present can look back and trace how things have unfolded.
However, I digress because these are not the reasons I like this film. I like it because it is simply funny and ridiculous, but not in a slapstick, one-liner kind of way. I realize I also have a particular affinity for the film-within-a-film cinematic structure, kind of like the backstage musicals of the mid-20th century. The cast is well-chosen and their chemistry is strong. You Ge, Rosamund Kwan, Donald Sutherland, Da Ying, and Paul Mazursky all have strong and, dare I say, somewhat endearing peroformances.
Lastly, whenever you have a East-West-type cast or film, often it comes off stale, weird, or just plain insulting. I think there is a very good balance here, where the audience stays focus on the world playing out on screen.

Language: Mainly Mandarin, some English.

Availability
Netflix: Available
Amazon Instant Video: N/A
SDSU: Available
UCSD: Available
San Diego Circuit: Available
San Diego Public Library: N/A

2011 TVIFF "To Watch List"

This is the 2nd year that I volunteered as a screener for the Temecula Valley International Film Festival. Below are a list of films that I came across that stood out as films worth watching either at the festival or at your local indie theatre or on Netflix. This list is not all-inclusive as I didn't have the opportunity (or would even have had the time) to watch every film that was submitted. I would say that most of the films on the program (listed here) have been well-vetted by a number of capable and critical screeners.

October Baby, Dir. The Erwin Brothers (Jon and Andrew) (2011) (IMDB)
This narrative drama by the Erwin Brothers, as a whole, is both engaging and beautiful. The story is not novel by any means, but nevertheless it is well-written, and from a well-written story was built a great film. Most, if not all, of the arcs all come around in the end and it is well-structured, which I'm sure audiences will appreciate. The cinematography is visually gorgeous as a combination of both great image selection and also great choice of location and geography. (Set in Alabama, I believe) Rachel Hendrix (Hannah) was fantastic playing the lead, a really strong performance. Up and down, the cast performed very well and their strong chemistry was evident on screen. Combine that with a strong, albeit emotional, score throughout the film, with a noticeably fresh soundtrack.
The film, for better or worse, plays it safe structurally. It seems a lot of films nowadays attempt challenging approaches, employing flashbacks, non-linear construction, etc. However, audiences won't find that kind of more challenging structure here; the film does mostly play by the rules and feels very mainstream. This isn't necessarily a knock on the film; if you have a strong story plus a strong cast, in my opinion, there's really no need to make it more complicated than that. "October Baby" certainly had those aspects and it showed.
The film isn't without its weaknesses, though, if you could even really call it that. For example, I didn't feel that the road-trip with the friends and the subsequent hate from Alanna (Colleen Trusler) toward Hannah was really necessary. The biggest strength of the film comes in the Hannah-Jason (Jason Burkey)-Hannah's parents relationship and, as a whole, the Hannah-Alanna arc didn't feel like it added much. In addition, it felt like there was an emotional over-pull during certain stretches of the film, whether through the score being over-the-top or some shots being too long.
Those minor points being said, as a whole, I think the Erwin Brothers should be proud of themselves. "October Baby" is well-envisioned and well-executed. Given the political landscape regarding the subject matter, it was handled deftly and effectively without being preachy or overbearing. Though some may object to the injecting of religious discussion toward the latter half of the film, I believe those who are able to look beyond politics will find a powerful film underscoring forgiveness and grace that can be found in human relationships, even in its complicated interactions and regrettable consequences. I found the film very compelling in both its construct and its narrative, and I do think that audience members that are willing to engage the Erwin Brother's characters will walk away very impressed.

5th and Alameda, Dir. Richard Friedman (2011) (IMDB)
Off the bat, this film is definitely violent and there is certainly some deep psychology involved. No one is spared, regardless of race, gender, profession. It is so equal-opportunity, in a sense, that I think it take considerable textual analysis by most audiences to a conclusion on the film's various social and cultural themes. Beyond the larger thematic arcs, some of the smaller arcs, though they reach their destination, feels underdeveloped; for example, the Detective Trevor (Mario Van Peebles, of all people, how awesome is that??) arc with his son. I felt that the film also got bogged down in some of the dialogue between Sara (Saye Yabandeh) and Derek (Corey Sevier) toward the latter portion of the film. And, yes, as some people have mentioned, it can be hard at times to follow the flashbacks and keep track of who is who and what is what. And yes, the end was not exactly a surprise.
All that being said, why do I think this film is worth watching? The one thing I commend Dir. Friedman on is that he is willing to take on such a complex and challenging style of filmmaking. Even after just two years of doing this screener thing, I've seen a number of filmmakers attempt this style of filmmaking and fail horribly. Few filmmakers attempt and succeed, either as a result of poor planning, poor visualization, or poor general vision. You can't just mash things up and hope it sticks. I don't know this for sure, obviously, but I imagine Dir. Friedman put in the necessary work for what I consider a well-executed film. Beyond just that, responding to the previous criticism, I don't fault him for the (seemingly) confusing flashbacks or non-linear storytelling. I admit it confused me a little bit, too, but I was able to puzzle it together. I think it is important to engage the audience and not just passively entertain them, and it speaks of Dir. Friedman's great confidence to trust that audiences will be able to decipher the film's construct. And considering the deep psychological themes involved, I think the piece-by-piece understanding/revealing is appropriate structurally. (Though, since I think it fades in intensity a little toward the latter half, I can't say much about its presence as a whole structure) Finally, Dir. Friedman does a very good job in character development, as Derek and Sara's (both potential and realized) keeps audiences engaged in a what-will-happen-next, what-will-she-do-next suspense.
All considered, I found it to be a very compelling film. It is intense and there isn't much of a break till the latter parts of the film.

Other Films of Note
Kings (Short), Dir. Barbara Mones. (2011)
The Conquest of High Passes, Dir. Wout Conijn. (2011)
East of Berlin (Short), Dir. Dean Yamada. (2011) (IMDB)
Lost Airmen of Buchenwald, Dir. Mike Dorsey. (2011) (IMDB)
Pepper (Short), Dir. Kim Noon. (2011)
The Man Who Knew How to Fly (Short), Dir. Robi Michael. (2010) (IMDB)

Hope people get a chance to go out and support some great films this year at TVIFF 2011. You can visit the website for more information here .

Favorite Film Series [Wk:3]

This week's film is a documentary, one that I watched at the San Diego Film Festival in 2009. I found it very, very well done and also incredibly engaging.

Prince of Broadway (2008) Dir. Sean Baker

Why this film: Set in an urban, immigrant community in New York City, the film centers around Lucky (Prince Adu) and Prince (Aiden Noesi), the "son" Lucky wants nothing to do with. As a barely-aware infant, Prince's "performance" is both touching and heartbreaking, so much so that it is almost unbelievable that this film is fictional drama and not a documentary. Getting an infant like that to behave and perform in that way speaks of a director's ability to get it right and also speaks to the director's ability to be patient with his vision.
The relationships between characters in this film can probably be only characterized as brash and tolerating, but it is the relationship between Lucky and Prince that is probably the most engaging. It's a gut-wrenching story of hope and humanity, where the question about "What will happen to the child?" always looms in the audience's mind. But the film is also humorous in the painful kind of way, things that shouldn't be funny but it is.
If nothing else, I commend Dir. Baker on his approach to the film, rejecting the delineation between fiction and documentary. It is a difficult approach and I think he executes it very well. (With a little luck on his side, I'm sure)

Availability

Netflix: Available
Amazon.com Instant Video: Not Available
SDSU: Not Available
UCSD: Not Available
San Diego Public Library: Not Available

(Note: According to Amazon.com, this film is being released in October 2011. No idea why it is being released 3 years later. Anyway, I imagine with the pre-order pub for the film that it will eventually be available at the very least on Amazon Instant Video)

Favorite Film Series [Wk:2]

Last week's Still Life by Dir. Zhang jia-ke might have been too slow or too subtle for some filmgoers and for others, social commentaries with narratives just don't tickle their fancy.

For this week's Favorite Film Series, we'll be going in a slightly different direction.

(Note: I'll try to post films that are available. Some favorite films of mine, I realize, are not as accessible, which obviously makes it hard to watch.)

In the Mood for Love (2000) Dir. Kar Wai Wong

Why this film: Dir. Kar Wai Wong has been around a long time and a number of his films have done well internationally. Besides the themes of love and loyalty, the film is crafted with very sensuous overtones. Heavy orchestral arrangement, drawn out scenes with slow motion, very dramatic photography all combine to give a seemingly overly romantic film. I don't think that is a problem actually, and I find the film very enjoyable at that level. Tony Leung (Chow Mo-wan) and Maggie Cheung (Mrs. Chan) both have exceptional performances. Maggie Cheung, in my opinion, not only has a great performance but the way she looks is also exceptional.
Some people might say the film drags, but I think considering the push-pull affair within the text, the film's pace is appropriate. And, for what it is worth, I think this is a perfect date film.

Language: Cantonese, with English subtitles

Availability:
Netflix: Available
UCSD: Available (Limited)
SDSU: Available
San Diego Public Library: Available

Favorite Film Series

People always ask me what my favorite film is. I generally dislike that question because 1) there are too many films to just pick one and 2) if I tell them what my favorite films are, they will stare at me blankly because they've never heard of the film, since most of them are foreign films.

Then, recently, I had this brilliant idea to use this blog to talk about my favorite films and give people reasons to watch them. I don't know why I didn't think about this before, but I tend to be late on a lot of things. Oh well.

So, I will begin a blog series, My Favorite Films Series. Most of these films are films that you've probably never heard of, which is all fine and good. It's always good to watch something different and unique, unlike most mainstream films that are mostly all the same.

Hopefully, I will be able to open you guys up to new films. And, if you do watch them, please let me know what you thought.

Okay, enough pretense. Here is the first film (in no particular order):

Still Life (2006) Dir. Zhang Ke Jia



Why this film: In my humble opinion, since I am no expert on foreign cinema, I believe that Director Zhang is the best and most important filmmaker out of China. A number of his films could probably be a part of this series. This film is essentially social commentary on modern China and the country's conflict of past and present. If you know anything about China, it's that things are changing very rapidly and Director Zhang film comments on its human impact. The danger of this approach, however, is that the film can become an overt, preachy, talking heads piece that takes the typical Western-model of Big Bad China vs. The Poor People. Rather, Director Zhang works in irony and subtlety with both the narrative and the images. Watching his films does take some patience for the Hollywood-raised audience, but if you're paying attention, you yourself may feel the conflict that is going on for both country and individual.
Both Tao Zhao (Shen Hong) and Zhou Lan (Huang Mao), who play two of the film's main protagonist, have great performances in working with the film's style and theme. If you have any interest in China, at all, "Still Life" is a must-watch.

(I'll limit my reviews, so I don't spoil it or talk it up too much and let the film speak for itself)

Language: Mandarin, with English subtitles

Availability (San Diego)
Netflix: Available
UCSD: Available
SDSU: Not Available
San Diego Circuit: Available (Limited)
San Diego Public Library: Available

When submitting: Not-to-do Checklist

Being part of a group of film screeners for a mid-level film festival the last two years, I have observed a few tendencies of filmmmakers submitting their films. Some of these tendencies, in my opinion, can impact the chances your film gets to the next step. The impact might seem incremental, and in many respects, they are probably just that. However, with the probability of your film making it to the second round incredibly slim, avoiding negative points with the screeners might help in the end. At the very least, it'll leave the decision on your work, rather than how you submitted your film. At the very most, you'll have saved yourself time and effort on superfluous things.

Don't be pretentious or presumptuous
Assume that the screener knows how to operate a DVD menu. I saw one case where the DVD menu said "Use the remote to select play." Be careful how you list "cameo" or "special" appearances. It really cannot be either of those things unless they are even slightly well-known. It will just come off as silly.

Don't include anything but the film
This includes DVD jackets, DVD labels, booklet inserts, and letters/notes. DVD jackets, unless it is incredibly accurate and well-written, it can create false or misleading expectations when the film is actually watched. As for the other three, screeners generally don't have time to read them or they don't care to read them. In terms of data not to include, trailers, blooper reels, anything but the film itself. Just a waste of space, in my opinion. The screener, again, won't have to time to watch them. I say just keep it simple. The only exceptions are 1) if it is a working cut 2) it contains temp music/soundtrack, then a small note would be appropriate.

Don't allow corrupted screeners
This really goes without saying. Test your screeners. If it fails, guess what is the chance of acceptance?

Don't assume copyright clearance
If you have copyrighted songs or film clips in your film, listing them in the credits doesn't qualify as clearance. I know it works on YouTube sometimes, but if there is even a question of copyright violations, it won't make it to the second stage, even if your film is brilliant. Obviously, screeners don't know every copyrighted song or film in the history of music and film, but if it is popular enough or well-known enough, it will raise huge red flags. If you do have clearance to use "Saving Private Ryan" in your short, you'd better write a small note saying you do or make it clear in the credits "Used with permission."

None of this will matter, of course, if your film is no good or if your film is just absolutely brilliant. Since you probably don't think it is either, for better or worse, it is important to (or don't) do everything you can to help bump your chances. Remember, film festivals have a limited amount of slots and they are looking for every reason to say no. And lastly, remember screeners are people, too, and you just never know what makes them tick.