Category Archives: Vancouver

VIFF 2014: A Much-Changed, Yet Achingly Familiar Film Festival

A knock-out sizzler, pulling you in to the 33rd annual Vancouver International Film Festival

The 2014 Vancouver International Film Festival is much-changed.
Oh sure, there are the same folks involved this year as in recent years, the venues will be the same as they were last year, but the films that will be screened at this year’s Festival (more A-listers than in years!) … and the utter loveliness that is newly-installed Executive Director Jacqueline Dupuis. And let’s not forget about that knockout ‘sizzler’ VIFF prelude video above, created by the folks at post pro media (I mean, like wow, wow, wow!).
As I have written previously, Alan Franey stepped down from the day-to-day running of the Festival, just after last year’s Festival came to a close. Alan, and Festival staff with whom I was in contact last autumn, insisted that there was a succession plan in place — and lo and behold, the successor was right in their midst, in the form and person of Jacqueline Dupuis, who had already worked with the Festival for a couple of years, in a (perhaps?) more ‘restricted’ Executive Director capacity.
In 2014, Ms. Dupuis has put her stamp on the festival, emerging very much as the reigning intelligence of VIFF 2014. Who’da thunk? Certainly not me, if you read last autumn’s October 13th VanRamblings column.
(By the way VIFF folks, mea culpa — I was wrong)

Jacqueline Dupuis, Executive Director, Vancouver International Film FestivalVIFF Executive Director Jacqueline Dupuis talking with VIFF Media Manager, Justin Mah

What were the chances that Jacqueline Dupuis, arriving from Calgary three years back, would find a family in the programmers and staff at VIFF, and in 2014 would emerge as the eminence gris of the Festival? In person, Ms. Dupuis possesses the charm and lack of guile you would find in a 22-year old, an openness to experience, and an almost wide-eyed wonderment in the living of a life encompassing the hours of her day — and here she is now, today, the matriarch of the Festival — lovely, strong, bright and principled, the leader in whom festival staff have vested their faith.

star.jpg star.jpg star.jpg

For those who are not familiar with the staff of the Vancouver International Film Festival, let me tell you about my observations: there is about the folks who work with VIFF an uncommon kindness, integrity and humanity, as well as an intelligence matched with an unerring sense of purpose.

VIFF programmer PoChu Au Yeung, with JB ShayneVIFF Programme Manager PoChu Au Yeung, and retired broadcaster, J.B. Shayne

There is amongst the fine folks who work with the festival, a feeling that is palpably shared among all those who are associated with the festival, of a higher purpose, a humanity and warmth and caring — not just for the city, or for those of us diehard cinephiles who live for our festival-by-the-sea each and every autumn, but for one another, full-time and part-time administrative staff, and volunteers. VIFF may be possessed of the most functional administration of any arts organization on the continent.
There is the quiet, zen-like presence of the festival’s Director of Programming, Alan Franey, right on through to Alan’s longtime second-in-command PoChu Au Yeung (a relationship of equals that has sustained for years), through to this year’s kind and generous programme guide editor Curtis Woloschuk, as well as longtime Canadian Images programmer Terry McAvoy, the entirely magnificent Shorts International programmer Sandy Gow — about whom we wrote a couple of years ago — with longtime VIFF stalwart Jack Vermee back from France for another go-round, and Vancity programmer Tom Charity very much a part of the family, all of whom share a common sense of purpose, but more, oh so much more.

star.jpg star.jpg star.jpg

As per the title of this blog post, you probably want to know how it is that VIFF33 is different from all of the previous VIFFs. Okay, here we go …

It would appear that with the Toronto Film Festival engaged in a dispute with the Telluride Film Festival, the Vancouver Film Festival has snuck in and snagged a record number of A-list Hollywood films — a welcome departure in programming orientation from years past.
From Jean-Marc Vallée’s Wild — starring Reese Witherspoon, Laura Dern, Gaby Hoffmann — the Opening Gala film at VIFF 2014 (the film played to raves at Telluride, and is also on the TIFF schedule), to the closing Gala Film, Whiplash — the breakout film at Sundance earlier in the year, and also on the TIFF schedule — through to certain Oscar nominee, Bennett Miller’s incredibly well-reviewed Foxcatcher — débuted at Cannes, just screened at Telluride, and screening at TIFF; Olivier Assayas’ Cannes stunner, Clouds of Sils Maria; David Cronenberg’s Maps to the Stars; Jason Reitman’s much-anticipated Men, Women & Children; Xavier Dolan’s Mommy; to the five-star, scalp-prickingly scary It Follows, the 33rd annual Vancouver International Film Festival will be a festival to be savoured and appreciated.

Second, in all the years I’ve covered VIFF, I’ve never heard Alan Franey wax as poetically enthusiastic about as wide a range of the films that are scheduled to screen at VIFF. When video of Alan’s address to the VIFF Launch / Media Conference is made available (apparently, a week Monday), I’ll post it on VanRamblings. Believe me when I write that Alan’s “guide” to VIFF33 could very well prove to be the definitive guide to this year’s Fest.

2014 Vancouver International Film Festival Guide

This year, for the first time, the VIFF guide will be FREE (yes, you read that right: free). The guide is glossy (forgive the photo above — the guide is actually a brilliant white), may be found at your favourite video store or book store, at libraries and all around town, as well as at the Vancity Theatre, and is available now, at least a couple of weeks earlier than usual, just as valuable as ever, and an absolute must cinephile acquisition.

star.jpg star.jpg star.jpg

What is the same about this year’s Festival, compared to previous years?
Fabulous, mind bogglingly beautiful films, a great team of VIFF administrative staff and volunteers, incredible venues (The Centre for the Performing Arts is back again this year!), and the best (if, often, most challenging) time you’ll have in a darkened cinema all year long, as well as a window on our diverse world that provides a par excellence experience.
What is different?
Well, I’d say a brighter, more contemporary, more business-like and almost aggressively engaging spirit that is just going to draw you in like never before, incredible ‘of this age’ sizzler videos that will drive business to the Festival like mad (I’ll post them as they become available), a renamed and focused VIFF Industry Conference (more on this in the days to come), a raft of new sponsors, that great new free VIFF programme guide — and more, of course, but you’re just going to have to check it out for yourself.
Tickets are now available online, and as of September 13th will be available in person at the Vancity Theatre box office, from noon til 7pm daily.
On the weekend, I’ll write more about the specific VIFF 2014 series and films, will post more video, provide more information on venues, and will publish much much more. This is gonna be a great festival — see ya there!

star.jpg star.jpg star.jpg

2014 Vancouver International Film Festival party tweet

Jacqueline Dupuis, Executive Director, Vancouver International Film Festival

Decision 2014: Tim Louis Says Vision’s Vision is Getting Blurry

Tim Louis On The Issues

Reprinted with the permission of the author of the article, Tim Louis.

Mr. Louis was a two-term member of Vancouver City Council, and will be a 2014 Coalition of Progressive Electors candidate for a Council nomination. COPE’s nominating conference will be held Sunday, September 7th.

In politics, as in our personal lives, sometimes we need to revise our expectations. Other times, we have to admit we are wrong; we are required to concede that we simply did not do enough.
In the case of Vision Vancouver’s highly touted and infinitely flexible promise to end homelessness, it appears that a rather shady third option is taking place. Rather than admit fault, Vision is redefining the terms to distract the public while keeping developers as its main allies.
Since its inception in 1937, the NPA (Non-Partisan Association) has been the developer’s party.
For the NPA, an attitude of “everyone should enjoy the fruits of their labour” means that a developer’s application for rezoning is rarely turned down. Under the old NPA and relative newcomer Vision, Vancouver has been governed to maximize developer profit, not public well being.
In 1968, COPE (Coalition of Progressive Electors) was founded as an alternative to the developer’s party.
Today, the political landscape consists of not one developer party, but two: NPA and Vision. As such, COPE has always run at a disadvantage because the NPA is lavishly funded by developers, as is Vision.
Although both of the developer-backed parties make showy presentations of their dedication to free enterprise and good business practice, it is COPE that actually practices truth in advertising.
COPE candidates are pledged to uphold the policy positions democratically adopted in open meetings, unlike the developers’ parties, who enjoy the fruits of developing their platform behind closed doors by a chosen few.
Vision Vancouver is a version of the NPA with bicycle lanes. Some observers refer to Vision as NPA Lite.
Meanwhile, COPE is sticking to the principles of social justice and offering an unambiguous alternative to these developer parties.
COPE is the only party offering a clear and concrete proposal to address the crisis of homelessness. With the creation of a Vancouver housing authority, COPE proposes to build thousands of units of subsidized and affordable housing which would be owned and operated by the city.
Instead of following a plan to produce results, Vision has played games with the issues of housing affordability and homelessness.
Here is one example of Vision game playing. Vision simply redefines the term “affordable housing” to include any rental housing so that when a developer applies for rezoning, the bylaw that requires a certain number of units to be affordable is meaningless. Permits are issued because any rental units, no matter how expensive, are being considered affordable when there are actually very few who are able to pay the rent.
Earlier this year, the Metro Vancouver Homeless Count revealed that homelessness has increased in our community. Vision’s 2008 campaign promise to end homelessness by 2015 has been a failure. Scrambling to save face, Vision has changed the message to claim that what they actually intended to do was end street homelessness.
Although someone who uses a shelter may not be considered street homeless, they must still be counted as a person without a home. Anyone staying in a shelter is required to leave in the morning and stay scarce until evening is essentially homeless during the day.
A home is more than a place to sleep.
Vision arbitrarily changes the meaning of terms at will, in a dazzling example of what the great English satirist George Orwell called “Newspeak” in his classic study of tyranny, 1984. Rumours that the book’s character Big Brother is now on stipend to write press releases for Vision cannot be confirmed at this point, but remain plausible.
Regardless, Vision’s underhanded revisions of language are the party’s attempt to convince the public that they are standing firmly on some sort of platform rather than tumbling with the lint in developers’ pockets.
Don’t we want a city council that positions itself firmly outside the fiscal influence of developers?
It’s COPE that has the real plan to address the important issues of homelessness and affordable housing.

Vancouver House: Don’t Worry Your Pretty Little Heads

Vancouver Cedar Party, a civic electoral party committed to democratic governance

The folks in the Cedar Party are at it again, telling us stuff that we already know. Like how there was only one bidderWestBank Corp, owned by Mayor Gregor Robertson’s bestest pal and big time Vision Vancouver supporter, Ian Gillespie — on the property where the much-touted Gesamtkunstwerk Vancouver House will be built. We say, so what? If the Mayor wants to gift his good friend Ian with ‘special favours’, so be it.

Vancouver House, a Bjarke Ingels condominium project for Westbank Corp

But are the noisome folks in the Cedar Party prepared to leave it at, “That Ian Gillespie fella, he has this in with the Mayor, and with Vision Vancouver, you see, and there’s just something a little unsavoury about the whole circumstance where there was only one bidder allowed on the Vancouver House site, and don’tcha know that bidder was Ian Gillespie, and doesn’t it somehow seem wrong to you that Ian Gillespie ‘was allowed to tie up this property for several years without paying for it until final approvals were granted, which only occurred recently?” Nope. They just can’t leave it alone!
That Glen Chernen fella — you know, he’s the Mayoral aspirant for the Vancouver Cedar Party — and his hearty band of civic miscreants — I mean, really, who are they to be asking questions of our esteemed Mayor and his fabulous gang of demogogues at Vancouver City Hall, the once and forever Vision Vancouver party that will rule over us for our own good, whether we like it or not, for generations to come — where does the Cedar Party get off having the temerity to ask a question like, “How can the interests of Vancouver residents be seen to be looked after if our local government gives itself the unilateral right to sell off city-owned land without even passing consideration being given to the notion of competitive bidding for the sale of our precious, ‘belongs to the people of Vancouver’, property?”
Who do the folks at the Vancouver Cedar Party think they are? Heck, you’d think they live in Vancouver, and have a dog in our 2014 civic electoral fight.
Oh, you mean, these Vancouver Cedar Party folks, they do actually live in Vancouver, and they’re running candidates to defeat Vision Vancouver this November 15th. Good luck to them, those newby civic electoral naïfs — as if that’s going to happen, given the millions of dollars that developers have poured into Vision Vancouver coffers these past six years, and more!

Vancouver House, The July 28, 2014 Province newspaper article by Sam Cooper

And to top it off, Chernen and his bothersome, irksome group of detectives go about quoting a July 28, 2014 Sam Cooper article in The Province newspaper — but three weeks late, cuz Green Party of Vancouver Council candidate Pete Fry had already written a blog post about the 52-storey Westbank project at the north end of the Granville Bridge.
And, just like the folks at the Cedar Party, Pete Fry goes and sticks his nose where it don’t belong, and casts aspersions on the character of the Mayor and his Vision Vancouver colleagues, in having approved the Vancouver House development (you remember Vancouver House, with that annoying ‘star’ architect Bjarke Ingels on our TV every night, endlessly overselling just how wonderful Vancouver House will be once it’s finished) — not that anyone in Vancouver will be able to afford to live there, but like who cares anyway, except maybe the Cedar Party, and Pete Fry, both of whom point out that Vancouver House is being marketed exclusively (an allegation since corrected) to wealthy overseas buyers — replete with (gosh, wouldn’t it be nice?) “special absentee owner concierge services and a fleet of luxury BMWs on reserve”. But there you go again, with those annoying Cedar Party folks, and Fry, chiming in with a quote from Cooper’s article:

“According to the South China Morning Post, two sales offices were opened in Hong Kong in June … (with units) marketed in Singapore … reserved for overseas buyers … (meeting with an) overwhelming response.”

As we say, looks like folks from Vancouver won’t be able to afford Vancouver House, anyway — well, certainly not you or me.
Like, so what, eh? The folks who live in Vancouver have bigger things to worry about — will the kids be back in school on September 2nd, or when to set aside some time to go to the PNE, and important stuff like that.
Who does that Pete Fry guy think he is, anyway, questioning his betters — I mean, Geoff Meggs and Andrea Reimer, they done got themselves elected to Council, and the folks who live in Vancouver put their trust in them, and now youse got this Pete Fry fella askin’ questions, like somehow he’s got a right to ask questions of his betters. Gosh, we think not. Heck, you’d think that there was an election going on, or sumptin’ like that there.
And, don’tcha know — probably under a threat of a lawsuit — The Province pulled the original story, and all readers can find now is this correction.
Thank goodness the Non-Partisan Association seems to think that the Vancouver House skullduggery is just fine, with nary a peep from NPA Mayoralty hopeful Kirk LaPointe — although, one supposes, these are early days in Campaign 2014. LaPointe will certainly have to enunciate a position on development once the civic election campaign begins in earnest.
Let us hope that the NPA narrative on development in our city differentiates itself from the Vision Vancouver development narrative, which is …

“Hey folks, it’s only development we’re talkin’ about here. You should let your betters make decisions on your behalf, cuz we know what we’re doing, and you don’t. Honest, there’s nothing to see here folks, just move along. Don’tcha know, the PNE is on, and there’s this darn teacher’s strike that’s happenin’, you don’t want to worry your pretty little heads with something as stupid and arcane as development. Ewww, that’s yucky stuff — you’re not really interested in that. Oh look — a bright shiny object. Pretty, isn’t it?”

And thank god, too, that the naïfs and ne’er-do-wells over at COPE headquarters could give a good goddamn about secretive and unsavoury development in our city — gosh, they’re only concerned with turning our city into a communist paradise. Me, I can’t wait til they issue the drab grey uniforms that we’ll all have to wear when COPE takes over — gosh that’ll be no fun, and don’tcha know that’s exactly what COPE wants, for all of us to live under the yolk of COPE oppression. Gosh, that oughta be great!
And best of all, thank God we’ve got such a subservient media, who wouldn’t say shit if their mouths were full of it. Well, it is Vision Vancouver, after all, and who in the media would dare to question the majority party that has reigned supreme at Vancouver City Hall these past six years?

Decision 2014: Mayor Gregor Robertson Virtually Unbeatable

Vision Vancouver wins a second majority term in 2011

A couple of weeks back, in an interview with The Straight’s Carlito Pablo, former three-term Coalition of Progressive Electors (COPE) City Councillor David Cadman predicted that Vision Vancouver would likely win a third consecutive majority term in office at City Hall come this November 15th.

“I’m not a betting person but I would think, and I haven’t seen any of the polls, but I would think…that they will get another majority, yeah.”

As it happens, VanRamblings concurs with Mr. Cadman’s prediction. Let’s take a closer look at Vision Vancouver’s prospects for re-election in 2014.
Vancouver Civic Election: The Mayor’s Race, Robertson vs LaPointe

Gregor Robertson, Kirk LaPointe, Glen ChernenVision Mayor Gregor Robertson, the NPA’s Kirk LaPointe, and the Cedar Party’s Glen Chernen
In the 2014 Vancouver civic election, Mayor Gregor Robertson would seem to have another win at the polls, come November 15th, virtually in the bag.
In 2011, Mr. Robertson took 53.17% of the vote, as 77,005 electors cast a ballot for the sitting Mayor, almost 10,000 more votes than were cast for him in 2008. Meanwhile, in 2011, the opposition Non-Partisan Association garnered only 58,152 votes, or 40.15% support. In order for Kirk LaPointe, the NPA’s mayoralty candidate in 2014, to triumph on the evening of November 15th, the Mayor’s popularity would have to drop by almost 10,000 votes, with a concomitant rise in popularity for the NPA. What are the prospects that the Mayor will lose 10,000 votes, while Mr. LaPointe transfers Mr. Robertson’s lost votes into the winning column for the NPA?
VanRamblings’ answer to that question: bloody unlikely.
For all the kvetching of the opposition poli parties about City Hall secrecy, development run amuck, Vision’s failure to build affordable housing, and the utter collapse of the Mayor’s commitment to end homelessness by 2015, a recent Justason poll indicates that the Mayor maintains the support of 59% of the electorate, an almost insurmountable lead in popularity over the NPA’s Kirk LaPointe, who registers only 41% support from the electorate.
Opposition parties don’t win elections; the party in power loses government, generally arising from scandal, utter incompetence, in-fighting within the party, or a weariness among the electorate. None of those latter attributes apply to Vision Vancouver, who would not only appear to have maintained the support of the electorate, but have, as well, an experienced, well-funded, and professionally-run electoral machine that has won majority government twice, and means to win a third majority mandate in 2014.
As we’ve written previously, in 2002 the NPA lost office at Vancouver City Hall when City Councillor Jennifer Clarke succeeded in a party coup to dislodge popular three-term sitting Mayor Philip Owen, much the same circumstance as occurred in 2008, when NPA City Councillor Peter Ladner defeated sitting Mayor Sam Sullivan to run — in what proved to be a losing bid — as the NPA mayoralty candidate. Both times the party was trounced at the polls. As we say, the electorate simply doesn’t like party in-fighting.
In 2005, the Non-Partisan Association was once again able to gain a win at the polls, when the Coalition of Progressive Electors (COPE) — the sitting civic government of the day — found itself rent with division.

star.jpg star.jpg star.jpg

What could cause Mayor Robertson to lose in 2014? Character issues, or evidence of financial impropriety. Rumours continue to abound about indiscreet behaviour involving the Mayor. Meanwhile, there are rumours afloat about the Mayor’s involvement in financial / development transactions where the Mayor and / or his friends have unduly, or ‘illegally’, benefited.
VanRamblings’ perspective on these politically-inclined rumours: political partisans opposed to the Mayor’s re-election are dreaming in technicolor.
At this point, there are only three Mayoralty candidates, other than the Mr. Robertson, who’ve announced their intention to seek office at Vancouver City Hall: the NPA’s Kirk LaPointe, the Vancouver Cedar Party’s Glen Chernen, and independent candidate for Mayor, Colin Shandler. COPE, as well as TEAM, had been rumoured to be running mayoralty candidates, but that prospect seems to have dimmed in recent months.
The Non-Partisan Association is the only civic party, other than Vision Vancouver, that has the funding necessary to mount a winning campaign for office. For all that the Cedar Party’s Glen Chernen is a fine fellow, his party is underfunded and understaffed, with little or no history of involvement on the civic scene — as such, Chernen’s potential for success at the polls is remote, his role in a bid for civic office that of spoiler, most probably as it relates to the prospects of the NPA’s mayoralty candidate. Colin Shandler’s prospects for a win are nil — he’ll just not find himself in the conversation, however much of a decent guy he may be.
All is not necessarily lost for the NPA’s mayoralty candidate, though.
In Kirk LaPointe, the Non-Partisan Association has a handsome, informed, articulate, grounded and charismatic candidate, a mayoralty hopeful who thinks on his feet, writes well, connects in a palpable manner, and has staked out firm positions on the issues that have arisen over the summer.
Unfortunately, Mr. LaPointe would seem to be suffering from Left Foot Syndrome — which is to say that Mr. LaPointe would seem to favour that particular appendage for regular placement in his mouth (at least it’s not both feet!). It’s difficult to disagree with what Green Party of Vancouver Park Board candidate Stuart Mackinnon has to say when he writes …

“While I’m not a fan of the current regime at City Hall and agree that we need change, I think Kirk LaPointe should choose his examples a little more carefully. All three examples he uses — Aquarium, tankers and Granville Island ownership — are very important civic issues. The Aquarium because it sits on public park land and leases this from the Park Board, tankers because even one mishap could have irreversible consequences for Vancouver, and Granville Island because what happens there has great effect on the City as a whole.

There are many examples to show why we need a new government in Vancouver, these 3 are not amongst them.”

VanRamblings believes the points Mr. Mackinnon raises to be unassailable.
Even if Kirk LaPointe hasn’t proved to be too much the politician to this point in the civic electoral race — why would he take a position on a hot-button issue like the Aquarium, and risk alienating a goodly portion of the electorate who don’t agree with his enunciated position of ‘Park Board should leave well enough alone, things are fine at the Aquarium’? — these are early days in Campaign 2014 for elected office in the City of Vancouver.
As much as Vision Vancouver aims to emerge victorious at the polls come November 15, 2014, Kirk LaPointe and his ready band of NPA colleagues are just as intent in securing a majority victory on that very same evening.
In 2014, Vancouverites may just find themselves witness to an honest-to-goodness civic election campaign that engages the hearts and minds of the electorate. In the coming days, VanRamblings will publish analyses of the Councillors’ race for elected office, as well as Board of Education and Park Board. Welcome back. Nice to have you reading VanRamblings again!