Pardon my language, but...
F*ck it!!
I'm so sick of waiting for these festivals to update their stupid websites n' make "official" what we've known for weeks. I guess they like to dole out news gradually?
Anyway, I figure since this blog technically isn't public then... *insert day-time talk show "My Teenage Daughter is Out of Control" sass* I DO WHAT I WANT! *strutting back n' forth in an ill-fitting belly shirt, middle fingers waving* DEY DON'T OWN ME!
So here it is, our unofficial festival announcement! (Hmm... Somehow I always imagined I'd start this post more gracefully... ;)
First, let's pull the Toronto Band-aid, since that's the one people keep asking about. Everyone who saw the film was super duper confident we'd get in, and rather shocked when we didn't. Even though a few months ago we were warned of some potential politics that might help or hinder our chances (that I won't get into), we didn't actually expect a 'no'.
The good news is, our producer was given a sincere apology (ie: a phone call - not a form letter) - not that they owed us one - and was told that they discussed DE a lot internally and considered it right until the very end. The reason they didn't put it in was because they felt that "the *removed - spoiler* scene was too literal and sentimental for a festival film."
Fair enough. I'll be the first to admit that it's totally sentimental. But it's also very beautiful. I'd even go as far to say that it's one of my favourite moments in the movie! So, we have no regrets there. :)
TC took notes, and provided us with their feedback, which was as follows:
* They liked the ambiguity leading to the climax.
* Knew *removed - spoiler* early, but didn't seem to care - which is positive as it shows they enjoyed the film.
* They praised everyone's performance, except one actor's.
* Felt it was a strong first feature for Jim.
* Nice tonal execution.
Jim n' I were actually very pleased to hear all this, because ultimately they could've just said, "We didn't think it was a strong film." End of story. But instead it sounds like they genuinely enjoyed it, which is good.
However, given their "too sentimental" reasoning for not including it, now everyone in the know is quite convinced that the perceived politics played a part. (Holy alliteration, Pac Man!) And to be honest, if I were in the programmer's shoes, I hate to say it, but I probably would've played the same card.
All that being said, our film has been accepted into a number of other festivals where it won't get as lost in the hubbub as it would've in Toronto. While all the details have yet to be ironed out, it looks like we have a very exciting month ahead.
Our premiere will be at Cinefest in Sudbury on Sept. 18th. They have offered us a gala, which I believe is sponsored by CTV. I think only Jim n' I will be attending this festival. Eep!
On Sept. 22nd, we head to Calgary, where we have been invited to open CIFF!! This is a pretty big honour and sounds like it'll be quite the "world class event". (Or so they tell us. ;) Everyone, including D&B, will be in attendance for this one. I was checking out pics on FB from their opening gala last year and it kinda freaks me out with all the media and whatnot. As a writer, I'd think I should be able to by-pass all that nonsense and just duck inside the theater. But since I'll be walking the red carpet alongside Jim, there's probably a good chance I'll end up on camera at some point. Ugh. I think I might be sick...
From there, we head to Edmonton on the 25th for EIFF. I'm not sure if we have a gala there or not? This is what I mean about "unofficial" announcement. Some dates n' details might be subject to change. But as I discussed with Jim (who was opposed to me sharing any of this news with all three of you) I feel like we're stringing people along by not saying anything. So as I said above, f*ck it. I figure the people who bother to read this blog deserve to get some details before things are officially announced. Why else would you come here?
Anyway, after Edmonton comes Vancouver. No date set for that yet, and no idea if we'll have a gala either. Apparently our distributer doesn't want to have a gala in Van for whatever reason, and has the power to veto it if they offer us one. (Just like he vetoed us attending the Atlantic festival in Halifax, because he didn't like their conditions.) It'd be a shame not to have a gala in Van, since that's where most of our actors n' crew are from. We don't understand his logic.... but what are ya gonna do?
So there you go! Now you're as in the loop as we are. ;) Apparently we've submitted/are submitting to some other festivals that happen later on, but we won't know about those ones for quite a while.
When the time finally comes, I will officially announce our festival news on FB with any relevant links n' whatnot. Until then, for the sake of Jim's sanity, let's just pretend this blog post never happened....
Have a great weekend!

Merie Wallace/Fox Searchlight Pictures
Part creation epic and part family drama, The Tree of Life stars Jessica Chastain and Brad Pitt as the parents of three boys in the '50s.
A couple of weeks ago, I watched the new Terrence Malick film, The Tree of Life. If there is a genre of cinema called "metaphysical," this movie would be the perfect example. Some of the deepest questions humanity has grappled with are interwoven with the story of a struggling, middle-class Texan family in the 1950s. As a reminder that the sublime and the tragic can wear many disguises, we witness scenes of awesome beauty — of the beatific kind — set in the very mundane scenery of a suburban street paired with scenes of heart-breaking family grief.
The central theme of the movie is loss and how we relate to it. Malick counterpoints our frail humanity against the dramatic splendor of nature, inserting within the movie a creation narrative that begins with the Big Bang and moves on to show swirling vortexes of exploding gas depicting the birth of stars, unformed planets, the shaping of Earth, the first stirrings of life, the development of multicellular creatures and plants, the age of the dinosaurs — all the way to the birth of a child in a hospital in Waco, Texas.
By doing this, the director wants us to understand that we are part of this creation story, that this cosmic narrative is our own. From the rich imagery and evocative music (Mahler, Brahms, Couperin, Berlioz and the original score by Alexandre Desplat) on, we are induced to see the universe, life and, of course, humanity as a manifestation of God, a kind of Spinoza deity, everywhere and in everyone.
As the narrative progresses, we witness many versions of loss. Mr. O'Brien (a Brad Pitt looking all grown-up and severe with a crew cut and a few extra pounds) and his wife, the Pre-Raphaelite Jessica Chastain, have three sons. Jack, the oldest, is the central presence in the story, played by the impressive Hunter McCracken. He suffers constantly from the anger of a frustrated father who dreamed of being a classical musician (we see Pitt playing the piano and the organ at church, and forcing the family to listen to Brahms during meals) but who, instead, works in some kind of factory. Malick never tells us exactly what the father does, but we infer he is some kind of engineer — at some point, his application for a patent and its sale fails. He can be cold and violent, as when he asks his sons to punch him in the face.
Apart from his angry father, Jack also has to deal with the superior artistic talents of his younger brother, R. L., who could play guitar very well, draw beautifully, and looked nicer than he. (In fact, he looks a lot like a young Brad Pitt, perhaps to suggest that this son was his father's dreams incarnated.) Jack's mixture of jealousy of and adoration for his brother evokes the struggle we all have with our own limitations, not unlike what the character Salieri felt toward Mozart in Amadeus.
To contrast with the heavy father figure, mother is a saint-like, angelic being, a mystic who loves nature with religious fervor: "Love everyone. Love every leaf, every ray of light." Mother and her three sons were the happiest when father had to leave on a business trip for a few days.
The family bliss — even the cinematography implies that their suburban life was a kind of Eden—is destroyed when the second of the three brothers is killed in Vietnam at age 19. The movie cuts backward and forward in time, and we see Jack in the present time, as an adult played by a soulful Sean Penn locked inside a coffin-looking ultramodern building in New York, staring longingly out the window, asking, "Where are you?" to his brother and, it can be safely assumed, to God. Throughout the movie, there is a lot of whispering in voice over, no doubt to create a sense of the sacred, of prayer-like atmosphere. Malick attempts to transform the movie theater into a temple.
Through the struggles of Jack's character, the movie poses us with the choice, repeated by mother and by the ongoing imagery: "We must choose between the way of grace and the way of nature." Grace here means generosity, forgiveness, a form of inner strength that can suffer all sorts of insults and still keep going, resolute and beatific. There are many ways of describing it, but all of them are anchored in our existence, in our humanity. We are the conduits of grace: It would not exist without us. (However, during the cosmic narrative scene, a predator dinosaur spares the life of a docile plant-eater in a seemingly graceful act. Perhaps a suggestion that grace is not only human and that it evolved?) From this perspective, and from what the movie tells us in text and imagery, grace is goodness.
Nature, on the other hand, is indifferent to us; it just keeps on going, doing its thing, creating and destroying, with no deeper sense of purpose or value. If God is in nature or is nature, as the movie seems to suggest, then God is not graceful. Most of us are stuck in the middle of this power struggle, trying to make sense of our brief existence. A premature death has no excuse. It shatters even mother's seemingly inviolable sense of grace.
The movie concludes with an end-of-days sequence, where the living and the dead commingle in a paradisiacal beach. I was moved by the scene but puzzled by its message. Is Malick telling us to believe in the afterlife? Is that how we should cope with loss?
We don't need to choose between grace and nature. There is, I propose, a third way, a middle way, where we find grace innature, not just through its beauty and every leaf and ray of light, but in our deep connection to it, through gain and loss alike. What killed the father, figuratively speaking, even before the death of his beloved son, was his estrangement from the true meaning of grace, which is to connect deeply with what is around you, living beings and not. Instead, he could only connect with his lost dream.
I hope that of the many messages in Malick's film, one that will endure is that nature and grace are not at war with each other but that they are one and the same: After all, here we are, the creations of eons of cosmic history, able to invent the concept of grace and to be inspired to live by it.