Sundance - Day Five

Sunday felt like Sunday at Sundance.

There was a sense that even though the festival hasn't yet hit the halfway mark, that today was the calm before the next storm. After all, the big premiere of the day was Hamlet, which has already been written off by almost everyone…well, at least everyone who has decided that Ethan Hawke will never be a major commercial actor…well, everyone. In fact, a number of people I've spoken to left on Saturday night or this morning only to plan a return tomorrow for Happy Accidents, which has become a buzz film among distributors looking for anything distributor-free and commercial.

Main Street also seems in relative paralysis with the Park City ruling that handing out flyers would now be an offense calling for an arrest. (By the way, the filmmaker who got arrested for handing out flyers on Friday was back out on the street today, defying this remarkably silly rule.) Between the mild weather and the restraint of trade, it doesn't quite have the same feel as usual. Of course, we all complain about the hustling when it's there, but when you think about it, less than five percent of the submissions to Sundance or Slamdance get accepted and less than five percent of those films will ever be properly distributed in America. Distance from the insanity has reminded me that if you aren't up for being an aggressive, hard core hustler, you don't belong in this game. (Remember the kid who cornered Roger Ebert with a video of his movie in a restaurant last year? Well, he sold his film to HBO and he's back at Sundance, volunteering again. See, there are some happy stories.)

Which brings me to a thought I had today about publicists here at the festival. Yes, they do seem like vultures flying over carcasses that aren't even ready to eat yet. But why are they here? They have to focus. As singular a vision as a filmmaker needs, a publicist here needs to be able to maintain that focus and split it between a number of films. This doesn't excuse pettiness or rudeness or stupidity, but it does give me a slightly different, less David-centric, view of this group of often beaten, rarely bowed people. The people who are really sensitive and try to deal with the maelstrom around them as individual humans are great, but often burn out early in their careers. Which is what makes survivors who aren't complete jacka**es so special. (You know who you are. And if you think you qualify, but you don't, you've just proven the rule.)

Meanwhile, as I floated around Starbucks, waiting the 20 minutes it now takes to get a coffee there, I caught a glimpse of Heather Graham heading downhill and Jon Favreau heading uphill and doing a take before stopping and hugging. Now, that's a Sundance moment! Favreau stars in Love and Sex with Famke Janssen, who was also waiting for coffee, and the film is getting some good early buzz, sight unseen by most of the buzzers before last night's premiere. I did, however, get a look at Heather's film, Committed.

Committed, George Wallace and a Lonergan Correction

Committed is one of those films that simply should have been better than it was. The film was produced by Miramax and appears here in the Dramatic Competition, pretty much as a marking opportunity for the King of the Indies. Well, the film is going to need all the help it can get. Director/Screenwriter Lisa Krueger became a Sundance fave with Manny and Lo, which debuted here in 1996 and proceeded to disappear in a lame distribution effort. This time, Krueger has the commercial assist of an actress who may break out as a movie-carrying star in Heather Graham. Watching the film, I had an odd experience with Graham's performance. At first, I thought she was too quirky to carry off the role as the most committed of committed people. Her tag phrase is "Did I tell you that I would do it", clearly asserting that her word is her absolute bond. When she marries, she tattoos a ring on her finger. The film is about what happens when her husband leaves without much explanation and she tries to maintain her commitment to him, not in a stalking way, but with a genuine effort to love, honor and protect him. Throughout the picture, Krueger drops hints that this woman is not just focused, but kind of magical.

And suddenly, it seems that the role is absolutely perfect for Heather Graham. But Krueger is not, it seems, committed enough to the magic of this character to let it really fly. Graham's character remains so focused on being committed that she never really explores just what she really thinks commitment is. There is a great scene in the film in which Goran Visnjic, as an artist who hangs out with Graham as she watches over her wayward husband, begs Graham to give up on her sexual faithfulness. When she says no, he gets her to close her eyes and then runs his hand all over her body, just an inch or two away, never actually touching. And they both can feel it. And it is as sexy as any sex scene Graham has done. Spectacular. But isolated. Good performances are given all around. Even Casey Affleck shows the ability to act as well as being a smart-a**. But instead of being the movie that set Graham free, it becomes an okay movie with some funny jokes. I mourn the missed opportunity more than I enjoyed those jokes.

The other film I saw today was George Wallace: Settin' the Woods on Fire, a wonderful documentary on one of the most infamous names in the history of American politics. I was disappointed to see right from the top that it was a PBS supported film, because I thought, if it was good, it would make great TNT programming given the huge success the network had with the dramatic movie of Wallace's life starring Gary Sinese. Oh well. At nearly two hours and 45 minutes, there is no doubt that the film is made for home viewing. I hadn't really thought about it much before, but Sundance documentaries generally know that a movie theater audience is unlikely to sit in a documentary at all, but if they do, two hours is about the max. And that reality sets a different tone. A movie like The Filth and The Fury flies through its running time. George Wallace takes its time. Not that I'm complaining. The film, which I think is mis-titled, is at its best bringing Wallace's career full circle from racially unbiased young man to racially unbiased old man. But there are all kinds of fascinating insights. Why did Wallace embrace segregation? Why did he run for the Democratic nomination in 1972 after running as an Independent in 1968? Where did this guy come from? I don't want to answer any of the questions because I want you to see the film for yourself.

More tomorrow...

READER OF THE DAY: From L.J.: "Kenneth Lonergan may have co-wrote Analyze This with Peter Tolan. Peter put in years writing "Murphy Brown" and I'd hate to see him not credited for Analyze This."

And this from Surfbrat: "I am headed back home from Sundance. After four days I am exhausted and ready to drink some real beer! Groove was fabulous and so was The Convent. It was Run Lola Run meets Dead Alive meets Evil Dead! I really want to see But I'm a Cheerleader and Human Traffic. Let me know how those are if you catch them! P.S The crowds in line suck this year!

DAVID NOTE: I saw Cheerleader in Toronto and found it silly and charming. I still have to see Human Traffic, and your comment on Convent makes me think that maybe I won't skip it.

And finally, Pat on rage: "Should you get angry? Yes. But controlling and expressing anger and disagreement in a constructive manner is something we all have to work towards. Shouting and causing a scene with the publicist would have accomplished very little, probably not even making you feel better. By expressing your displeasure quietly with them then and then later in your column you accomplish more."

---

E ME: Thanks, Pat. What do you all think of Heather Graham? In more than four-letter words, please.