Also, what did you think of ‘District 9′? Although I didn’t like the film very much overall, I thought it did a reasonable job playing up the double meaning of ‘illegal alien’.

I haven’t read Bayard’s “How to Talk About Books you Haven’t Read,” but I should be precisely willing to talk about such a book. And then I could go on to say that just as “reading a book” is different from “having read a book,” the latter connoting being-done-with, consumption, digestion, understanding, the former a continuous present that can never take in this whole thing, the book, thus a partial, necessarily incomplete, missed appointment that outstrips critic and connoisseur alike—so too seeing a film must be impossible.

That’s on the accumulative side of things. But forgetting a film would be as active a process, as strange a process as seeing it. I recall, barely, the black leader at the beginning of “Sans Soleil.” It would be interesting to compile a list of films that seem to actively anticipate and frustrate the viewer-supposed-to-have-seen-it, films that allegorize the very duplicity you write about.

Strange that while we allow ourselves to say things like “I’m reading…” in a conversation with a colleague—and it’s understood that this reading could be interminable, a mole-ish activity, the very trope of scholarship. But do we say “I’m watching…” in the same way? We say “I’m working on…” or “I’m thinking about…” but not “I’m watching…”

I recall also my favorite bit of Barthes from S/Z, which you likely know very well:

“Rereading, an operation contrary to the commercial and ideological habits of our society, which would have us ‘throw away’ the story once it has been consumed (‘devoured’), so that we can then move on to another story, buy another book, and which is tolerated only in certain marginal categories of readers (children, old people, and professors), rereading is here suggested at the outset, for it alone saves the text from repetition (those who fail to reread are obliged to read the same story everywhere). [pp. 15-16; emphasis mine]

I wonder whether “rereading” and/or the labors and polemical pleasures of textual analysis fall cleanly on either side of the “idea” of “experience” divide? My guess would be no.

People who put patriotism over human welfare are sick in the head. So is this the new activism? Against war if Israel attacks, but not when Palestinians retaliate? I do not care which side started it, both are condoning mass murder. That is all there is to it.

I side with the people of Israel and Palestine, not their governments or militaries. War is war, murder is murder, injustice is injustice.

And you completely miss Lisa Gerrard’s point (spell her name right). You side with a country against another country, which is what caused the war in the first place. So you do not care if Israeli innocents are killed in the Palestinian retaliation but you cry blood when Palestinian innocents are murdered? Pick a side, war or peace. Pick a side, hate or compassion. WHAT IS IT GOING TO BE?

“For the plague-stricken their peace of mind is more important than a human life.” — Albert Camus

This plague is war, support for war, military worship. And the human lives are the innocents maimed all for the mad delusions of Netanyahu and Abbas.

Lisa Gerrard is right. Hatred is the cause of this bloody conflict. Religion and nationalism divide these two peoples who might otherwise have coexisted in peace were it not for their respective governments feeding them “Us vs Them” bullshit through propaganda and media, as Lisa Gerrard put it.

So what Gerrard says is nonsense, is it? Is the idea of peace nonsense? Is compassion nonsense? I am neither pro Israel or pro Palestine, in the nationalistic sense. I am for the innocent people of both. Why do people put nations above people? To divide and rule them, that is why. Propaganda and media.

Jesus Christ, hyperbole much?

Anyway, you’re right. This whole conversation is going nowhere. Antagonism will get you far.

What you have failed to understand is that I didn’t accuse you of this in the first place. Read the article again. Here I’ll quote myself: “Maybe the most wrong-headed idea out of [Glenn Dunks' comment] is the idea that film distributors generally do things “for a very good reason”. The whole point of the article is to dispute the idea put forward by you that the function of film distributors is to sort good films from bad films. This is the only way in which you are implicated in that diary entry which, frankly, isn’t concerned only with you but with framing our experience of a film festival.

What’s truly hypocritical here is the way you allow yourself the authority to criticise films (and all power to you by the way) but your own work must exist in a “vacuum” exempt from others’ critical thinking. Maybe you should learn how to engage other people’s criticism with an honest counter-argument rather than attempting to shame people for daring to say something negative about your work. I am happy for you to disagree with me about the merit of my positions. But this idea that I should feel guilty of putting “a slight bitter edge to this otherwise worthwhile initiative” is intellectual fascism at its most typical.

But there’s also the fact that lists stoke discussion. I can’t tell you how many times during MIFF I had a fascinating conversation with somebody (friend or unknown alike) that started with “so what’s been your favourite film?” or “How does Melancholia compare to other von Trier films?” By their pure nature, films are made to be compared and contrasted with one another. A filmmaker doesn’t make a film today and NOT hope that people think it is as good as other amazing films. I didn’t read the link you provided, but that’s because I don’t have the time to delve into the hows and whys of something like list making. That I’ve written this much here is a fluke.

As for the other issue, Brad, you DID put words in my mouth. Go and read the comment you initially quoted me on. I never once “admit(ted) to seeing films on the basis of them being released in the future” but merely that several of the films I had chosen to see did in fact have distribution. And, like I said in my comment, I’m not just making it up when I say a lot of terrible films that screen at festivals (even festivals as renowned as Cannes) don’t get released. Yes, many great films also don’t get released, but knowing that I couldn’t see everything that MIFF had to offer meant that I couldn’t feel too bad about not seeing something like “Surviving Life” which won’t get a release, but also didn’t interest me enough. All but a couple of films that I saw (those last minute “filler” types) were ones I eagerly wanted to see.

And, besides, we live in a world where films are more available than ever. Stuff like “Meek’s Cutoff” gets a nationwide release and most titles are available on DVD from at least *somewhere* in the world. But, again, you read so far between the lines you began seeing things that weren’t there in the first place.

As for why we go to film festivals? You know what, I imagine a lot of people who only go to MIFF for one or two sessions – the “regular folk” – go and see films that, to bring it back, will get released in cinemas. Difference is, those people probably wouldn’t go and see “Melancholia” at any other time of the year other than at a festival. A film festival is about seeing films in a specific atmosphere. It’s about exploring worlds and stories. I found it unnecessary to see stuff like “Beginners” which is out mere weeks later, but if I get to see “Melancholia” four months before it gets a release (where I would see it in a near-empty cinema at a 10am press screening, no doubt) then I’m going to take that opportunity up. If it means I miss some Czech drama that sounded as interested as watching paint dry then so be it.

But, then, I also think that something like MIFF is a time for myself and fellow film addictives getting together and discussing cinema in a vacuum. Many of my favourite moments of MIFF were the conversations I had after films like “Drive”. That you felt the need to poke at myself and Thomas especially throughout the festival (and Luke here in comments) is especially disappointing and put a slight bitter edge to this otherwise worthwhile initiative.

I’m not saying I’m ambivalent to lists, in fact I love nothing more than a good top five, I just found it curious that you were so critical of star ratings for reasons that also apply to lists.

And I’m not Glenn but I can have a stab at answering your question: I go to festivals to watch some films. That’s it. Sometimes I like to be challenged, sometimes not, but it all depends on the film. There’s nothing wrong with just wanting to be entertained sometimes.

Glenn, I did not put words in your mouth. I criticised you for implying a correlation between distribution and quality and that seems to be a position you are standing by. We’ll have to agree to disagree but it’s worth thinking about how some of the best films of the festival won’t be getting a release by their very nature. I.e. Because they do something more than merely show an audience something they “want” to see. Because they are genuinely challenging. Because they don’t leave the audience simply luxuriating in the “quality” of the film. It’s the films that leave us unsure of our position that are often the most worth talking about. And the question that remains from my 2nd diary entry: For what other reason do we need a film festival?