A Report on the “A Good Year” Gala screening from the Toronto Film Festival

I got to see “A Good Year” at the festival last night. It was a really wonderful evening. (My comments about the movie itself will be at the end of this report, so if you want to read that and not my meanderings about the event itself, please skip to the end.)

The movie was scheduled to begin at 6:30. My husband and I arrived just after 5:00 to line up, since we wanted the best seats we could get. (The film festival “galas” are all held at Roy Thompson Hall, which is not a movie theatre. It is a huge concert hall, where the Toronto Symphony Orchestra plays, and it holds about 2,600 people, but it is not designed as a movie theatre so some seats would be lousy movie seats.)

We were probably about 40 th in line for the general admission seats, which was not bad. I was feeling pretty good about our spot until they started a second separate queue for “priority” ticket holders. I found out from the people around me the “priority” ticket holders received their tickets from the corporate sponsors of the film festival. As the priority queue grew and grew, I started to feel less thrilled about our spot in the general queue. At least it was a pleasant evening to be standing outside, cool but not cold. The night before there was a series of terrible thunderstorms so the people waiting for “Penelope” and “Volver” would have been drenched.

About 5:40 they began to let the priority people inside, which was good because I now had a relatively unobstructed view of the arrival area. Ridley Scott arrived just before 6:00. He waved to the crowd, but did not go over to them. The roadway to the theatre which the VIPS drove up was barricaded off by police and they naturally stopped all cars before the entered. One vehicle was delayed a couple of minutes by police and the woman in front of me said “That’s probably Russell Crowe and they won’t let him through because he’s beaten up too many policemen”. I told her “Russell Crowe has never beaten up a policeman!” She said, somewhat sarcastically. “Oh, you ARE a fan, aren’t you?” Sigh.

Russell arrived about 6:08. As you can see in the pictures, he looked great; nicely dressed but not overly formal: dark blue suit, white shirt, no tie, floppy AG hair. There were cheers from the crowd, and he went over to the people waiting across the road from the Hall, and shook hands and signed autographs for about ten minutes. The gentlemen behind me in line complained (good-naturedly) that Russell should come over to the people standing in the queue, because we were the “real” fans who had actually paid to see the movie.

A nice volunteer from the film festival showed up with a stack of tickets and said she had a few “upgrades” to hand out. The lady took our “general admission” tickets from the first 60 or so people in line, and gave us tickets for “main floor” seating instead. So that was a bonus of getting there early. Our line didn’t start moving inside until about 6:20, so it did not seem possible they could get that many people seated before 6:30.

We did end up with very good seats, right on the main orchestra level. If fact, we had a better view of the screen than some of the “priority” ticket holds who were off to the sides in some of the boxes.

Things did not get going until about 6:45. A film festival spokesman came out to introduce the film. He spoke about Ridley Scott, and listed many of his best-known films. He called “Black Hawk Down” “Black Hawk Dawn” which drew a few groans from the crowd. The spokesman also said the movie was based on the book “A Year in Provence” which is not true.

Then Ridley Scott came out, to great applause. He spoke for several minutes and was very funny. He talked about how he and Peter Mayle had conceived the idea for the story together, and how much he had enjoyed shooting the film. Then Ridley introduced Peter Mayle and he came out and spoke as well. He was also very funny and warm, and said most of the inspiration for the story was Ridley’s. Then Ridley introduced Marc Klein, the screenwriter, who declined to speak. Then out came Tom Hollander, (I don’t think most people knew who he was) and then out came Marion Cotillard. Ridley Scott said. “that’s it”, then, “Oh yeah, come on out, RC!” Russell came out and everyone cheered. All that he said was “Hello Toronto”. Then the VIP’s began to file off of the stage, and Russell said “Enjoy the movie”. Ridley asked (jokingly) if he should carry off the podium, but a staff member quickly appeared to remove it.

The movie began around 7:00 p.m., (half an hour late). I was looking around to see where Russell/Ridley etc. would come in, because the main level was full. The only empty seats I could see anywhere were in the balcony corners (horrible seats). I think they were sitting in the first balcony section, at the front, because there was a brief commotion there immediately after the film with people snapping pictures and pointing and stuff. So while it was great that our tickets got upgraded, it would have been exciting to have stayed up on the balcony level and be sitting not far from Russell and Ridley during the movie. Oh well. They seemed to leave the auditorium very quickly, and I couldn’t see them at all from my seat.

The theatre was full and I know that the 9:30 a.m. showing the next day (at a smaller theatre) was already sold out. The audience was a good cross-section of ages, lots of young people, lots of older people. Over half of the people were nicely dressed up, but the rest were just wearing their usual dull uniform of jeans. To my surprise, I saw a few older people who had not dressed up at all, and lots of the well-dressed people were from the younger set. Marion Cotillard was wearing a nice black cocktail dress and looked lovely, and Russell, Ridley and the others were wearing suits, so it was appropriate that most of the audience were dressed accordingly.

The movie ended at about 9:00 and the TIFF staff started hustling us out. The next film, “ Babel” with Brad Pitt was scheduled for 9:30, so clearly that film was going to be delayed. Brad Pitt was out front doing the autograph thing as we exited the theatre (pandemonium!), but the “Good Year” crowd and the “ Babel” queues were kept completely segregated. I could hear some people in the “ Babel” queue fretting about missing the 9:30 start time, but obviously the movie was not going to start at 9:30 when nobody had actually been seated for it yet, so I didn’t think they should be panicking about missing the movie.

No film festival parties or celebrations for me. We have 4 small boys and our baby-sitter (my mother-in-law) wanted us to come home. So this Cinderella was home by 10:20, even though I would have loved to have had a night on the town.

And now, the movie:

I thought the movie was wonderful. Really well done and highly enjoyable. The movie was very funny, much funnier than the book (which wasn’t that funny). The audience laughed out loud many many times, and sometimes different segments of the audience laughed at different moments. There was lots of laughing throughout the movie, not the boisterous fall-off-your-seat, but lots of happy quiet laughing and whole audience seemed to enjoy themselves very much. This is a movie that is aimed at adults, and the humour is mature. Thankfully it is never cheap, potty, juvenile humour (which I do not care for). The characters are all very intelligent, so thankfully there is no really “dumb” humour by dumb characters. There was applause at the end of the movie, but no standing ovation. It is smart, well-written, clever and beautifully made.

I thought the cast was excellent. Russell as always disappears into the role. You stop thinking of him as “Russell Crowe” and only see him as “Max”. He really dominates the film, all other parts are supporting to his central character. Max in the movie emerges as a far more complex, interesting, conflicted character than he does in the book. Russell is very attractive as Max and deals with a wide range of emotions. I thought it was an excellent performance and he was very funny and engaging and thoughtful. All the other performances are great. Albert Finney is lovely, warm and likeable, Freddy Highmore is fine, Didier Bourdon as Duflot (they changed his name from Roussel) was excellent, Marion Cotillard was very attractive and likeable as Fanny, and really all the casting was excellent. Even the dog was fabulous.

There were a few profanities, but nothing excessive. There were a lot of references to “shagging”, but nothing distasteful. The one bedroom scene was brief but passionate, no exposed skin or anything. There is a brief glimpse of a bare butt (I won’t say whose, except that it’s not Russell’s) in a funny scene.

The story has been changed a bit from the book, but in my opinion that’s not such a bad thing. I liked the book O.K., but the book was nothing special. In the book the opening London section and the main Provence section are completely separate, but in the movie his London life and his Provence experiences keep conflicting with each other throughout the movie, which I thought made it a better story. I loved the flashback scenes with Albert Finney (Uncle Henry) and Freddy Highmore, (Young Max) and I loved how the flashbacks were integrated throughout the movie, as Max’s memories were triggered during the story. Uncle Henry becomes a real presence in the movie, while in the book he was just a means to provide the background of the story. The storyline with the two different wines is still present, although somewhat reduced in prominence from the book. The movie focuses on the character of Max, and his personal development, and focusing more on the two-wine storyline would have detracted from that. The movie explores Max’s relationship with Henry, with Duflot, with Fanny, with his friend Charlie, with his co-workers, etc., so all the other non-Max storylines, like between Christie and Charlie, while still present, have been reduced.

The movie is beautifully, lovingly made. It is a treat for the eyes, yet never overdone. There are no superfluous shots of Provence just to show it off, it is all shown in service of the story and you see what Max sees.

I really loved the music. There is a nice variety of music, some vocal sections, and lots of great instrumental sections. It is all very appropriate and well-chosen. I hate the contemporary fad of throwing in pop songs throughout a movie, either as filler when there’s really nothing happening on screen, or else to bolster up the movie in hopes that a catchy song will delude the audience in enjoying the movie, when all they are really responding to is a well-known song. I am happy to report that this movie never sinks to that low, and I thought the music was lovely and will make a great soundtrack. I think there was a song in English, a song in French, but the music remains in the background, never takes over.

It’s a hard movie to really classify, and I hope that won’t make it a hard sell. It’s not really a romantic comedy, because the storyline with Max and Fanny is not the central storyline. Max discovering what he really wants in life is the central storyline, so it’s more of a guy-discovering-himself movie than a romance. It reminded me a bit of “Sideways”, partially because of all the wine storypoints, but also because it’s a bout a 40ish guy trying to put his life into perspective, but I liked “A Good Year” far better than “Sideways”. Sideways was O.K., but it was not very funny to me, some parts were really slow, and I really disliked the character of Thomas Hayden Church in that movie and didn’t understand while Paul Giamatti’s character even tolerated him, yet Sideways got rave reviews and was a huge success. I think “A Good Year” was much funnier than Sideways, more entertaining, more beautifully made and with much more likeable characters.

People have already compared it to “Under the Tuscan Sun” which I also liked, but I think “A Good Year” is much better. My favourite part of “Under the Tuscan Sun” is where she renovates and decorates her villa. (Yes, I like decorating shows) but the redecoration scenes should not be a highlight of a movie, and the house should never be more interesting than the characters. I didn’t find the supporting characters in “Under the Tuscan Sun” that interesting, for example the relationship with the hot young Italian guy was clearly destined for failure so it was hard to get invested it. Again, I thought “A Good Year” was much funnier, with much more interesting characters and I loved how Max was trying to re-acquaint himself with his own past, not just running away from it like Diane Lane’s character was in her movie.

It reminded me a little bit of “Big Fish” partly because of Albert Finney and partly because it’s about re-connecting with your past and evaluating your present. I quite liked Big Fish, and hopefully people who liked “Big Fish” will give “A Good Year” a try. “Big Fish” got a little weird at times, which I didn’t mind, but I found some of the supporting characters and their storylines not quite so interesting and kind of a distraction from the main father/son storyline, and I like that “A Good Year” stays focused on Max. The humour in “Big Fish” and “A Good Year” is different, but both very enjoyable films.

So, how are critics and other movie-types going to like “A Good Year” and what about it’s Oscar chances? Some critics are predestined to not like this movie, because they don’t like this type of movie to begin with. Fair-minded critics who evaluate a movie for what it is instead of bemoaning what it isn’t will happily give it a fair review and recommend it for the entertaining treat that it is. To dismiss it as “fluff” is a gross injustice. And I don’t understand the Variety review saying the movie is “clumsy” and “strains to be lighthearted”. I didn’t sense that at all. I see a lot of movies, and in my opinion it is very good.

For Oscar chances, I’d say it has an uphill climb. It is not an issue movie, it’s not a big powerful drama, but if some of the big Oscar hopefuls turn out to be duds and they are scrambling around looking for something worthy, then you never know. Jack Nicholson got a best actor nomination a few years ago for “About Schmidt” a light comedy/drama about a man who’s evaluating his life and values, etc., and I liked “A Good Year” a lot better than “About Schmidt”, again because it’s funnier, more likeable characters, etc. I’ve seen the trailer for Oscar bait like “All the King’s Men” for example and all I saw was Sean Penn yelling a lot. That’s just the trailer, I know, but I didn’t see a lot of acting range there, but because it’s a drama, Penn will get Oscar attention. I thought Russell’s performance was really good, very different from any other character he’s played and showing a huge range of different emotions and moods throughout the film. I think “A Beautiful Mind” is his best work (although it’s not my favourite Crowe film) and clearly he is not working with that kind of challenging material here, but I thought it was a wonderful role and he did an amazing job with it. But will awards people go for more subtle work like this? They are often persuaded to go with flashy acting jobs (funny voices, characters with physical challenges) instead of subtle, and performances in dramas are always looked at first. If some of the Oscar favourites start to fall out of favour, then hopefully some awards people will take a closer look. I think Russell was really deserving of a nomination for “Cinderella Man” so maybe some people think he is owed this year. Instead of being a perennial Oscar favourite this year, and consequentially overlooked, he would certainly be an underdog, but that could ultimately work in his favour.

I wouldn’t get my hopes up, though, after the way things have gone the last two years. If you look at the last two winners, “Crash” and “Million Dollar Baby”, then people who raved about those movies would not give a movie like “A Good Year” any consideration at all. I am not a fan of either “Crash” or “Million Dollar Baby” and I was really disappointed when they won. I found them both dreary, ugly to watch, and full of characters that I did not like. I have no desire to ever see those movies again. (Movies I like, I love to watch multiple times) They were both “issue” movies however, even though I thought they barely scratched the surface of their respective “issues” and ultimately neither had anything to actually say about their “issues”, but obviously there are a lot of people out there who really liked those two movies. Some critics will dismiss “A Good Year” as fluff because it is a feel-good movie with a happy ending, but I think the continuous crossing paths, and unlikely interceptions and coincidences in “Crash” are more contrived and unrealistic than anything that happens in “A Good Year”. And if I were given a jacket that said “Mo Chuisle” like Maggie in “Million Dollar Baby” and my manager wouldn’t tell me what it meant I wouldn’t think that was cute and sweet, that would really irk me and I would go and look it up on the internet. I have a lot of problems with these movies (I won’t keep going on about them) but they won the Oscars for best picture, and wonderful “Cinderella Man” couldn’t even get a nomination. So clearly the Academy and I are not in sync at the moment. Academy voters who love movies like “Crash” and “Million Dollar Baby” would not consider a movie like “A Good Year”.

I really hope that “A Good Year” does well at the box office. It deserves to. It is a beautifully made, intelligent film for adults. My sister already asked me if an elderly neighbour of hers, who doesn’t see movies so often anymore, would like it, and I was able to say wholeheartedly “yes”. It’s a movie lots of types of people would enjoy, the trick is to get them into the theatre in the first place. The trailer doesn’t really grab you, it doesn’t stand out enough. I think the movie is far better than the trailer, so hopefully some great word of mouth will help at the box office.

I am really looking forward it seeing it again in November. It is very enjoyable, and very much lived up to my expectations. Fans of the book will not be disappointed, and fans of Russell will not be disappointed. Ridley and Russell should be proud.