Edinburgh International Film Festival 2010 Overview

One week on from the close of the 64th Edinburgh International Film Festival (EIFF), the ReelScotland team got together to review the highs and lows of the 2010 programme, while looking ahead to 2011's Festival.

Ross Maclean: When you're in the midst of it, it's difficult to get a fuller picture of the way it's going. You're pretty much attacking it minute-to-minute, screening-to-screening, review-to-review. I've had a bit of time to think about it this last week as I eased the foot of the film-watching pedal a bit for a well-earned rest.

Jonathan Melville: We're lucky to have so much going on at the EIFF, so many films to choose from, but it is tricky to know quite where to devote time and money, certainly in the first half of the Festival. There's a danger you aim for too much and lose some of the joy at seeing so many new films first.

Richard Bodsworth: It is always hard. Every year when you build a list of thirty-odd films you might wish to see, you can't tell what is going to be good and what's going to be terrible, but I suppose that's all part of the enjoyment at EIFF.

Jonathan: As ever, the arrival of the EIFF brochure is a highlight of my year: I always anticipate that this year will be the best ever, that every film could be the next Citizen Kane and that I'll make a brilliant discovery or four. And, as ever, I got a mix of the good, the bad and the instantly forgettable.

Ross: Initial viewing of the brochure was a disappointment for me. There was nothing to get the excitement levels up as with previous years. No big cult geekfest. No appearances from the likes of Kevin Smith, Joss Whedon, George A. Romero or John Waters. In fact, a general lack of appearances altogether.

That said, that's my issue! The EIFF is about discovery and despite a manifestation of some form of these concerns every year; I absolutely always see stuff I love.

Richard: Corman, Dante and Aronofsky last year. This year, Patrick Stewart and, err, Nick Hornby.

Jonathan: The first thing I turn to is the In Person section and to only find Sir Patrick was slightly underwhelming. Nothing against the man, I'm sure he's a lovely bloke, but when you're used to seeing names such as Dante, Soderbergh and Sigourney Weaver, one solitary interview feels a bit of a let down.

Richard: I wouldn't say I ˜discovered' so many gems this year. It wasn't that there were no good films, there were, just nothing that would go on to be the next Citizen Kane

Jonathan: Browsing the brochure didn't make me that excited about it all, but there were a few in there that I thought looked dependable if nothing else.

Ross: It certainly had a wealth of interesting looking films.

Richard: I agree. My favourite films certainly differed from my initial picks anyway. I was a bit off on my initial suggestions to be honest. While Outcast was nicely made with a crawling build up (even though you disagree Jon) and HIGH School was an entertaining comedy, my others didn't quite live up to my expectations.

Ross: My initial picks were largely based on past experience of talent involved. For me anyway, fairly safe bets.

Richard: At least you got Chase The Slut right. In fact you probably did the best out of the three of us!

Ross: Aside from one of them, I was delighted with the outcome of all of them. Possibly that's not a good thing. EIFF has a focus on discovery and the things I enjoyed the most were mainly the safer bets that I knew I was primed for: eg Oscar-winners (The Secret In Their Eyes) and third installments of much-loved franchises (Toy Story 3).

Jonathan: My picks were a mixture of the odd (Jackboots on Whitehall), the sort I thought I'd like (Get Low, Winter's Bone) and the classic (Privilege). While I fully intended to see a variety of films, I think you are often drawn to the safe bets in the first few days. It's when you start to read the buzz and speak to people that the more unusual/unexpected films emerge.

Richard: I'm cringing right now reading this at the bottom of our picks, 15 films which we think could be worth spending your hard-earned money on and I said The Last Rites of Ransom Pride¦

Jonathan: Yes¦Ransom Pride. Not to flog a dead horse, but quite how that ended up in the festival is a mystery!

Ross: I'll say Ransom Pride wasn't as bad as I feared. While it was no classic, it wasn't anywhere near the levels of awfulness you lot had set me up for.

Richard: That and The Dry Land were the worst things I watched this year.

Jonathan: That's interesting you say that about Ransom Pride, as I couldn't find one worthwhile thing in that film. But then again you both loved Outcast, which I really couldn't stand.

Ross: Ah, Outcast. The great divider!

Ross: I think EIFF's great strength is that it truly does get people talking. A lot of the stuff I saw, which I really connected with, was based on the recommendations of people I got chatting to.

Richard: Agreed. A lot of things I watched near the end of the festival were recommended by others.

Jonathan: As for top films, I missed a few of the bigger ones such as The Secret In Their Eyes and Skeletons as I knew they were coming out in cinemas anyway. From past experience I know that many films will never be seen or heard of again “ Mary and Max from 2009 didn't receive a UK release and it was a gorgeous animated film that deserved a large fanbase.

Richard: Without counting Toy Story 3, I'd say my top five are, in no particular order: Restrepo, Winter's Bone, My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done, The Secret In Their Eyes and Monsters. Honorable mentions for Chase The Slut, Outcast, brilliantlove and A Spanking in Paradise.

Ross: I will include Toy Story 3 and, as such my top five, again in no particular order, would be: Toy Story 3, The Secret In Their Eyes, Outcast, Donkeys and Chase The Slut.

There are loads just bubbling under: My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done, Heartbreaker, Winter's Bone, Girl With Black Balloons, Nothing Personal, C'est Déjà L'été, The Robber, Boy.

Jonathan: My top five would be: Donkeys, Winter's Bone, Monsters, Au Revoir Taipei, and Toy Story 3.

Ross: Donkeys was my favourite ˜proper' Festival film.

Richard: Meh.

Jonathan: Donkeys was the real find for me. I enjoyed Red Road, but would never have said it was a favourite. Donkeys just hit the ground running and had a near perfect mixture of humour, pathos and emotion. Just a shame it's been tucked away in a vault (or a hard-drive) somewhere for the last few years.

Ross: I expected to like Donkeys, but didn't expect to love it as much as I did.

Richard: I really enjoyed Restrepo which I hadn't heard of.

Jonathan: I also really enjoyed The Illusionist, which has grown on me over the last few weeks. It's certainly not perfect, and I'll admit living in Edinburgh must have a part to play in it, but it was a lovely little film. I wonder how well it will do outside the festival.

Ross: Actually, sorry. The Illusionist should also have been in my honourable mentions list as I really did enjoy it. The animation was lovely and it's so rare to see a film that touching which has so little dialogue. A very clever piece of work which embodies the dual sensibilities of Sylvain Chomet and Jacques Tati very well.

Jonathan: Out of my original picks, Get Low probably shouldn't be a cinema movie but made for TV while Red Hill tried hard, and very nearly worked, but it lost it in the last 20-30 minutes or so with some strange decisions. A shame.

Ross: My predictions were pretty much as I expected, to one extent or another. Only Two Eyes Staring (Zwart Water) was a little disappointing and more than a little derivative. It certainly didn't deserve comparisons with the peerless The Vanishing.

We've discussed Ransom Pride, but was there anything else either of you thought was abjectly terrible?

Richard: Like I said earlier, The Dry Land. Awful film. I'm still gutted SoulBoy lost the audience award to the dull Get Low.

Ross: Can't fathom how Get Low won the Audience Award although, to be honest, I rarely can fathom the winners. It's always a certain type of film that wins (with the exception of geek block-voting in the case of Clerks II) “ Get Low perfectly embodies that type.

Jonathan: Get Low had Bill Murray which I think automatically endears it to people, it's also very safe.

Richard: I know, apart from Skeletons (which also deserves a mention), I was amazed by the award winners. The Dry Bloody Land!

Ross: Skeletons really was an interesting piece of work that should also have been on my honourable mentions. I reckon that stands the chance of being this year's breakout success, like Moon last year.

Richard: Hopefully. It's not as good as Moon though.

Jonathan: I managed to miss Skeletons, will try to see it on general release. It got a bit of a kicking from Sight and Sound this month.

Ross: Ah really. Not read it, but undeserved I'd say. Not perfect but it has vision and does something really interesting with the means at its disposal. For me, the pointless Superhero Me and the epically boring Ollie Kepler's Expanding Purple World were the true lowlights.

Richard: Ollie was on my initial list. Apart from Edward Hogg it was painfully dull.

Jonathan: Perhaps my biggest let down, apart from Rancid Pride, was the closing night film, Third Star. A bland and manipulative film which simply sticks a man suffering from cancer in front of the viewer and asks you to get emotional about it. I'd say that it isn't even manipulative, just empty. I can see why people cried, as that sort of movie of the week drama will always get to someone.

Ross: The Retrospective seemed to be a success.

Jonathan: Ah yes, the Retrospective. As much as I enjoy seeing new films at the cinema, I think there should always be space for golden oldies and forgotten films from around the world. We're spoilt here in Edinburgh throughout the year with a huge selection of these at the Filmhouse, but the After the Wave Retrospective was a fantastic gathering of old films which are rarely, if ever, seen on the big screen nowadays.

Ross: I only managed one thing at After The Wave, but it was something I was longing to see for years: Michael Powell's The Boy Who Turned Yellow. It was odd to see such a curate's egg on the big screen, although it was quite probably the strangest audience I've ever sat amongst.

Every single line of the film got a laugh, even if not supposed to be funny. I'm talking leg-slapping and whooping which seemed to result from the fact it was from the seventies and nothing more. Very odd. Still, it was great to see this footnote in a great man's career, even if it is a slightly ignoble end.

Jonathan: I didn't get that experience, but then most of the films I saw were thrillers or dramas. The biggest laugh seemed to come from the price of a bottle of whisky or round of drinks in a bar, circa 1977.

Ross: It's not that the film wasn't amusing, just not that amusing.

Jonathan: I was taken by Michael Apted's The Squeeze, starring Stacy Keach and Freddie Starr(!), which has never had a DVD release, and seeing Edinburgh-born director John Mackenzie's Made, which only seems to have one print left in the UK, was a treat.

I did gripe earlier about the lack of In Person events, but some of the introductions to films around the EIFF were pretty impressive. We were lucky to have directors such as Mike Hodges, Stephen Frears, Barney Platts-Mills and the great Ken Russell on hand to introduce their films.

I should also say again, as I keep saying now, that these sort of films deserve to be seen outside a festival wherever possible. I realise a niche audience won't make a cinema a fortune, but more people should be allowed to watch our ˜lost' cinematic history in a screen next door to Sex and the City 2. IMHO.

Ross: What about the introduction of Edinburgh Festival Theatre as a venue? Really uncomfortable seats. Loved the grandeur of it but wouldn't be gutted if they didn't programme anything there again.

Richard: I didn't make it to any screenings there.

Jonathan: As mentioned in the introduction to The Man Who Would Be King, Edinburgh falls behind other European cities who can house 1500 people at a time. However, the combination of hard seats, an awkward seating position in the stalls and iffy sound quality if you're not in the centre means that for me it doesn't work just now. I'll admit that I did see a 35 year old film, so don't know if the sound issue is improved for a newer screening, but it was noticeable and spoilt my enjoyment. I wonder if the EFT is a listed building? Could mean those seats remain for a long time to come¦

Ross: If you're in the stalls the screen tilts back at an odd angle that seems to favour the circle. It's a bit distracting watching a film projected on a trapezium, rather than a rectangle.

Jonathan: I think any future EFT screenings will need to be seen from higher up and in the centre to get the benefit.

Ross: Overall, I think the balance was a bit off this year, though not entirely through EIFF's causing. I think they need to strike the right balance between showing the interesting films that rarely get seen but also having a star presence, something that gets people excited: filmmakers who people already know and love, as well as those who may grow to be that in future.

Jonathan: When you look at the sheer volume of film festivals around the world, it must be a nightmare trying to get the best of the best for EIFF. I applaud the ˜festival of discovery' idea and do want them to keep finding newbies.

Richard: I pretty much agree with that. The 'star power' was perhaps the thing that was missing this year. There was obviously Toy Story mixed in with some great British and foreign productions, but something was missing for me compared to previous years.

Ross: I definitely saw a lot that I'll be spreading the word about for the next few months. There's no doubt about that. I think it's the atmosphere that needs working on, rather than the films. I think adding a bit of star power would help boost that. There's no denying that it creates a buzz.

Richard: It would be exceedingly expensive to bring the stars across and if it's not a world premiere, why would they (the stars) really bother?

Jonathan: I have a soft spot for a bit of Hollywood glamour and it would be nice to see a bit more of that returned to the EIFF. I've suggested elsewhere that perhaps in an age of austerity there needs to be some thought given to new ways of doing this, perhaps embracing new technology to beam the odd high profile interview into the Cineworld for an evening.

Richard: It's still not the same as seeing them in the flesh. I'd struggle to get excited for a satellite Q&A personally.

Jonathan: Not having an actor/director here in person could be seen as cheating, but why not get one big name to come here who's worked with a lot of people and have them interact? I don't know exactly how it would work but I think it's worth experimenting.

Richard: Sure it's worth a try. Better than nothing I suppose.

Ross: I think it's definitely worth a shot. I've seen satellite Q&As in the Cameo and, while they can't rival seeing someone in front of you, some insight from a filmmaker is better than none.

Jonathan: That's where I'm coming from Ross; it is done just now so I don't see why it couldn't be done on a larger scale, at least once. If it works then they've hit on a cost-effective way to get big names and if it doesn't then try something different in 2012.

Ross: Also, make the audience write down questions beforehand. Pre-screen them to avoid some of the embarrassing clangers that get spouted. Actually, receive Qs through Twitter etc too “ that way you can screen them and open them up¦

Jonathan: I'd like to see them mix it up a bit in 2011. Try new interview styles, see how online and offline interaction between the fans/public can work to create a buzz around events/screenings. As we mentioned earlier, discussion and debate is a big part of this festival, but strangely, while I'm tuned into Twitter, Facebook and the like, where all the buzz is meant to be, the main way I heard about things was in discussion in the Filmhouse bar.

Ross: Twitter was an odd one this year. I don't think it worked as well as it could have in terms of being a buzz-generator. In fact, it seemed more the meeting place for starting twarguments.

Richard: It didn't perhaps have the same buzz as previous festivals.

Jonathan: Much as I believe in the power of Twitter, nothing quite beats a good in-person chat about a film. I wonder if that's something that could be looked at for 2011, more get togethers for film fans in the Filmhouse/Cameo bars?

Ross: I think that sounds like a good idea “ and for the general populace too, not just industry. The average Festivalgoer is a film fan who likes to talk about what they've seen. At the moment, there's no formal (but informal) place to do that. Would be a good suggestion to block book a bar for chatting after certain high profile films.

Richard: All in all, while my only real ˜discovery' was Restrepo and perhaps Monsters and Skeletons as I'd probably have seen my other favourites at the cinema, I felt there was a nice mix of films even if the star power was a bit short.

Jonathan: Film-wise, I'm still not sure how you can guarantee a bigger hit rate and avoid the mediocre. I suspect you actually can't, you just have to hope you've got a good mix. Perhaps by scaling down the number of films you make it easier to find the good stuff, but then that takes away part of the fun of having such a variety.

Ross: In terms of films, I applaud EIFF for providing the mix they do. I really don't think there's anything more than can do on their part to improve on what they're already doing. There's always going to be stuff you connect with, and stuff you don't.