Pinkboard's 2006 Mardi Gras Film Festival Graffiti Wall

One of the most popular parts of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras is the Film Festival. It is now in its 13th year and features over 150 films.

It opens in Sydney's amazing art deco State Theatre with the winners of the My Queer Career short film competition. This is followed by a party where you can meet the filmmakers.

With films from India, Italy, Israel, Serbia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Thailand and even US you will find love, lust and lesbians a plenty.

Bought a 5 pass and found it hard to choose as well as fitting in with other events but here's what I'm seeing: When Beckam Met Owen, My Mother Likes Women, Adam & Steve, Balls and finally Cote D'Azur on closing night. Plenty of others I want to see but just can't fit them in.

Hopefully people will start posting their opinions now the festival is about to start.

See you all tomorrow night!
GT - Wed 15 Feb 2006 18:37:33 Replies: add

i work out of town and don't have access to a credit card so can't get membership any otherway.

membership is great because you get so many discounts on the films and priority seating (skipping all those long lines to the movies!)
- Thu 16 Feb 2006 14:13:16 Replies: add

And the colors and cinematography on most of the films was just amazing, even though most of them were done on digital video.

There were only a couple of films that were, shall we say "arty"? I'm sure the judges saw something in them, but my friends and I just shook our heads thinking "what was that about? just lost 5 mins of my life i'll never get back again".

Am interested in finding out which of the short films made it to the DVD. Last year there was a great short called "Oranges" that I loved, but strangely it wasn't on the DVD, and that was very disappointing.

Looking forward to seeing more films next week. Film Festival is always one of my favourite parts of Mardi Gras.
- Fri 17 Feb 2006 11:15:21 Replies: add

i just checked your DVD and i was wondering how come certain films like The Bridge and Two Nights weren't there?

lovely amazing
- Fri 17 Feb 2006 14:38:28 Replies: add

Ursula Udders - ...dig for gold, dig for gold... rob my safety deposit box - Sat 18 Feb 2006 12:32:15

I could also live without the sales pitches before every film for membership of queerscreen. If the presenters had something of consequence to say about the upcoming film their speeches might be justified but as it is the reference to the film is just an excuse to flog membership.

As for the films, those I have seen so far generally conform to the depressing view of gay life that mainstream Hollywood has always represented. Are these films QS's idea of how one advances understanding of gay life?

As well, two films I've seen - Loggerheads and the last of My Hustler shorts - convey an irresponsible representation of what it means to be HIV positive in 2006. The first presented HIV treatment as something that makes people sick and so its lead character was justified in choosing the alternative: dying from AIDS. The last of My Hustler shorts presented HIV from a pre-1995 perspective without saying so. It showed a gay man dying of AIDS - with Kaposi Sarcoma lesions aplenty! - without any reference to treatment. As a HIV positive man who has lived with the virus for 15 years and treatment for 6 years, I find this appalling. The ignorance about HIV I have to deal with in my life is just mind-boggling. The fact that Queerscreen shows films that perpetuate such ignorance confirms my view that gay organisations are failing HIV positive people.
- Mon 20 Feb 2006 09:46:24 Replies: 1, add

With regard to the HIV issue, I think that the role of Queer Screen is to present all points of view, and many films may not present issues in a way that that everyone agrees with.

The whole thrust of our festival theme this year was to comment on the institutionalised 'gagging' that is occuring in this, and many other countries. So we wont accept being labelled 'irresponsible' for screening films which portray issues that you may not agree with. We are not failing HIV positive people, we are showing the many viewpoints that exist in the gay and lesbian world.

It is up to the health organisations to deal with these issues, and if films are being made portraying what you percieve as ignorance, then best they be screened, so the health bodies that need to deal with these issues be alterted to how well their messages are getting across.

We do not necesarily endorse everything we screen, but we do hope that what we screen encourages healthy and vibrant debate within our and the mainstream community.

But censor we wont do - as that is a far worse crime!!!
Queer Screen - Mon 20 Feb 2006 15:43:57 Replies: 1, add

Monday 27 March
7pm, Queens
9.10pm, Le Clan (3 Dancing Slaves)

Tuesday 28 March
7pm, Fun in Boys Shorts
9.10pm, Like a Brother

Wednesday 1 March
7pm, Balls
9.10pm, Young and Lovely

check our website www.queerscreen.com.au for more details!
Queer Screen - Mon 20 Feb 2006 16:48:15 Replies: 1, 2, add

GT - Tue 21 Feb 2006 04:52:24

Monday 27 Feb
7pm, Queens
9.10pm, Le Clan (3 Dancing Slaves)

Tuesday 28 Feb
7pm, Fun in Boys Shorts
9.10pm, Like a Brother

Wednesday 1 March
7pm, Balls
9.10pm, Young and Lovely
Queer Screen - ...square eyed..... - Tue 21 Feb 2006 11:22:57 Replies: add

We are trialing electronic voting as it is very labour intensive and cumbersome to use paper, so please have a go if you can.
Queer Screen - Tue 21 Feb 2006 11:27:02 Replies: add

It has been replaced with a repeat screening of

A LOVE TO HIDE.

This film stunned our audience when it screened last Sunday and we've had requests to rescreen it. A LOVE TO HIDE was the winner of the Audience Award for Best Feature at the Reel Affirmations G & L Film Festival Washington USA.

LOVE TO HIDE screens SAT FEB 25 at 2.30pm ACADEMY TWIN
Queer Screen - Tue 21 Feb 2006 15:53:31 Replies: add

I was commenting on the fact that both films I saw that had significant focus on an HIV positive character presented HIV in a way that is in conformity with the way that mainstream media still present HIV: namely, as a disease without a treatment.

What amazed me about the film Loggerheads was the fact that no-one in the film questioned the HIV-positive character's decision not to take treatment. If the film had looked at the connection between the character's rejection by his parents and his decision to not take life-saving treatments, I would have had no criticism of it.

Given that our government is doing precious little, if anything, to inform the general population about treatments for HIV and the fact that the disease is treatable, it is a shame that alternative voices do not advance understanding of the facts of HIV. I don't think it's good enough to leave it to health organisations to deal with informing people about the reality of HIV – since that is not being done by them – nor do I think that that argument excuses filmakers from basing their scripts in truth. I also do not see how screening a film that does not deal with an issue – the truth about the effectiveness of HIV treatments – is likely to alert health bodies to the need to deal with an issue or indicate to them how well their messages are getting across when the health bodies are not dealing with the issue in the first place.

Whether the filmaker's decision to avoid criticism of the character's decision not to treat HIV was based in ignorance on the part of the filmaker, I don't know. I suspect that their concern was probably more with how much emotion could be milked from the situation. My point is that films that perpetuate a lack of awareness of the truth of an issue they appear to be dealing with are second-rate films regardless of whatever other virtues they may possess.

In the My Hustler film, the same avoidance of the reality of HIV treatment – 10 years on from the discovery of combination antiretroviral therapy – was evident. When watching this film I thought it must have been made in the early 90s. With the apparent objective of wrenching as much emotion out of the scenario of a gay man dying of AIDS as possible, the filmakers ignored the truth.

I make these criticisms in order to express an opinion about an issue – lack of discussion of the treatability of HIV – discussion of which I do not see happening in the mainstream media. My own view is that government will not inform people of the fact that HIV is treatable because that might be seen as encouragement to engage in unprotected sexual activities – in the same way that issuing condoms freely is seen by some as an encouragement to engage in sex rather than abstaining – and would lead ultimately to an increase in the cost of treating people with HIV because of increased numbers.

As for the censorship issue, I wasn't suggesting that you censor. I was really asking: 'Is this the best that is on offer in the world of gay movies at the moment?' I would have thought HIV is a pretty significant issue and deserving of being dealt with in an accurate way by those whose films get promoted through the Festival. Certainly, when I watch a gay movie my antennae are on high alert for the way HIV is presented. That's inevitable, I guess. But I don't think I'm perceiving weaknesses that are not there. Whether others see the weaknesses, I don't know. But I do see criticism as a piece of advocacy for HIVers. People who have not experienced the disease and its medical requirements first hand necessarily have limited awareness of the facts as a result of the paucity of education in the mainstream media about treatments.

Anyway, I am wondering now which films in the Festival deal with HIV in alternative ways to that evident in the two films I happen to have seen. Any suggestions?
- Tue 21 Feb 2006 17:47:30 Replies: 1, add

What drugs were the judges on? Don't production values count nowadays? Or is tokenism a requirement for the competition selection?

Goody Two Shoes
Goody Two Shoes - Thu 23 Feb 2006 01:49:36 Replies: 1, add

Canadian director Thom Fitzgerald has a new film in the festival, THREE NEEDLES. Thom has dealt with various aspects of HIV/AIDS in many of his films. This film highlights issues surrounding HIV that do not get covered very much. The film does deal with mainly heterosexual characters. It stars Lucy Liu and Stockard Channing and screens on February 25 at 4.45pm.

We also have a number of new documentaries that will be shown either in QueerDOC or on World AIDS Day in conjunction with an AIDS organisation.
Queer Screen - Thu 23 Feb 2006 14:52:49 Replies: add

Next one for me is Balls on Saturday!
GT - Fri 24 Feb 2006 07:47:57 Replies: add

I can't buy a member pass from the box office if any of the films are showing at another cinema. Can this not be changed?

When I'm charged $1.50 booking fee per ticket (and yes, i need to book ahead when organising groups) it becomes $17/ticket for non members.

When people groan at $14.50 for main stream cinemas, their reaction is simply NO to $17.00. The only other option (which is not acceptable sorry Queer Screen) is to turn up at the box office on the day and hope sessions arent sold out. This doesnt really work if I have a group of people that have committed their time at this busy time of year to risk missing out on tickets and disappointed.

I appreciate and look forward to the festival every year, and i love the content & diversity of films. I also appreciate what it takes to keep an organisation viable with the costs of putting on niche films. But if high ticket prices are reducing 'bums on seats' - there is a balance point. I'd hate to think that the price point had precuded people from seeing the fabulous films you show.

Is there not some other option?
supportive but concerned - Fri 24 Feb 2006 15:00:47 Replies: 1, add

For members the ticket prices this year are actually cheaper ($14.90 last year, $14 this year).

Booking fees last year were $2.40, but this year they have been reduced to $1.50.

People can always buy the tickets in advance at the cinema to avoid booking fees and avoid missing out.

These films are festival films, and most do not get general release, so standard ticket prices are no fair comparison. if you look at some of the other specialist film festivals you will see that the ticket prices are similar, but maybe have even higher booking fees.

We really try our best to make it as inexpensive as possible, and thought we would please everyone by making it just a little less expensive for members (and only 10c more for non members - or $1 more for non booked tickets). Non booked member tickets are the same price as last year.

Bums on Seats are not being reduced, in fact they are increasing. So it seems to be working.

Its amazing what a psychological difference $16.90 is to $17

Thank you for your comments - enjoy the rest of the festival!!
Queer Screen - Fri 24 Feb 2006 18:26:55 Replies: 1, add

Is Australia being controlled by the straight anglo Mafia?

Is the gay scene being controlled by the gay anglo mafia?

Why is that question not been asked? Why have you singled out the Greek films, when many other anglo-australian films have won awards in the past 3 years, as well as people from non english-australian backgrounds?

I find your comment racist and appalling. I also take personal offence to it, and ask you to reveal yourself to me, and tell me to my face.

As a greek gay man, I found Mona Lisa to be absolutely succinct in representing what it is like to be gay in a greek cultural situation - it was spot on. That's what it is like to be gay in many greek families, and this is something the other australians should realise - our culture is diverse, and not everyone sees things the same way. John Howard, and people with opinions like yourself would like us to think otherwise. Mona Lisa was bursting with emotion.

As for the judges (none of whom are greek), they were all away. As far as i know, 2 were in Berlin, one was in Melbourne. They are very high profile people in the film industry - recognised internationally, and as such have many commitments around the world. They all would have attended if they were in town, and all expressed their regret in not being able to attend prior to the night. We even organised videoing Adam Elliot so that the judges presence was there in some way on the night. He also made it quite clear that Queer Screen is at arms length from the judging process.

I find your comments very saddening, because it is this type of ignorance that I (and many other people from non-english backgrounds)have faced all of our lives here in this country. This is why films like Two Nights, Mona Lisa, Lypi, The Bridge and many others are being made - to help educate and enlighten and enrich our ever growing institutionally stifled culture.
Panos Couros - Queer Screen Executive Producer / Greek Mafioso - Sat 25 Feb 2006 13:33:50 Replies: 1, add

GT - Sat 25 Feb 2006 17:22:12

This year however, MCA Tix indeed reduced their booking fee to $1.50 but this is a per ticket fee and not per pass or transatcion fee.

In 2006 for example I intended to purchase two pink passes for my partner and I. However as this option was no longer available I culled our movie choices to 16 films.

As these films were being screed at various venues the most logical option seemed to purchase tickets directly through MCA Tix in order to access multi film passes.

MCA Tix stated that the booking fee was a per ticket charge and not per pass or transaction charge. Therefore the booking fee applicable was $48! This charge seemed to be an exorbitant charge and we chose the alternative of going to the Dendy Newtown, Academy Twin and the Randwick Ritz to purchase tickets in person. Moreover this meant that we now had to select a set amount of films at each of the major venues in order to recieve to the pass price.

As a ticketing agent for the MGFF it is reasonable that MCA Tix need to charge a booking fee but $1.50 per ticket is exsessive and undermines the value of purchasing a multi film pass from them.
- Sun 26 Feb 2006 12:24:45 Replies: add

I hope the subjects of Queeruption appreciate the considerable irony that the inclusion of this documentary as part of the Mardi Gras Film Festival; was made possible by the sponsorship support they so derided.

Again there is great irony in a supposed connection of Teresa Avila with one of the greatest theologians of the Catholic Church. 'Lady 57' was pure narcissistic self-indulgence and 18 minutes too long.
- Sun 26 Feb 2006 20:37:03 Replies: 1, add

cheers,
polen - Mon 27 Feb 2006 09:59:15 Replies: 1, add

The quality of most of the films (particularly "lady 57") was a drop of great heights after My Queer Career, and I'm surprised that there was such an incredible drop considering in quality after one of the best My Queer Career sessions in years.

Lady 57 just rambled on and on and on, and I'm acutally surprised that it was ever filmed and edited in hte first place becaue there didn't seem to be any kind of structure to it. (sorry to be so harsh).

But as for Queeruption, I couldn't stop laughing through the whole movie. And i was laughing AT them, not with them.

It reminded me of all that undergraduate politics that I came up against when I was a student at sydney uni. some of these people jsut didn't seem to have a grasp on the real world. They were mad at Mardi Gras, but they didn't mind capitalizing on everything that MG had constructed.

THey don't seem to realise that money is needed to run events (we can't all squat somewhere and run fair day). And as for hte water issue, i'm so surprised that with their creativity with making cunt quilts and pondering the need for workshops relevant to newly arrived refuges, that they dind't just ask MG with a compromise of ripping off the labels off the water bottles so they could not breach the sponsorship deal (unless THEY had a sponsorship deal with their water supplier).

As I said i laughed through it all and their naivity about how the real world works. I was left wondering how they'd get to Tel Aviv with the next Queeruption is taking place without using the services of a multinational company.

My final sore point about Cellioud Salon is "Boys Grammar" - this short was supposed to be a sensitive look at bullying and there was talk about it being shown in schools as part of anti-homophobia workshops. But it will never get shown in any school due to the way it was filmed. The opening close up shot of the divers belly button and slow pan up his chest, was much too sexual and the full frontal nudity in the rape scene is very insensitive. you don't need to show full frontal nudity to depict rape. i felt it erotized the situation. some may disagree with me. but the way that scene was shot will mean that if it every does get shown in a school (and it won't) - the only thing the kids will remember afterwards is that there were cocks shown on screen. and that distracts from the intention of the film.

I walked out halfway through it because i felt it was just wrong.

I also hate how the bullies in these kinds of films always turn out to be gay themselves. What kind of message is that sending out? Most of the times people bully gay kids because they are the most isolated of the victims they could choose, not because the bully is gay themselves.

Have been enjoying the rest of the festival though. Winning Gay Shorts on SUnday night was good too. Loved the humor (and seriousness) of the gay western in that session.

I'm just sorry i didn't get to see more films this time around. It's flown by so quickly this year.
- Mon 27 Feb 2006 12:25:25 Replies: add

The runners up were:
"Lippy" from the film Lippy
photographer Giovanni Compolo-Arcidiaco
and
"What You Leave Behind" from the film Mona Lisa
photographer Susie Grokop.

For anyone who hasn't seen the Queer Stills, they continue to be projected nightly in a shop front at 72 Oxford street (opposite Starbucks).
Queer Screen - Mon 27 Feb 2006 16:45:06 Replies: add

Having seen over 12 movies so far and one more to go on Wednesday, I think this year is probably one of the strongest Queer Screen festivals yet. I think the organisation did a great job this year and thanks to all the volunteers. But please look into this ticketing issue. $1.50 per ticket is a joke. I can't believe I paid $66 in total for all the tickets! Yes, I could have gone to the Academy Twin and bought the tickets there, but since I was buying multiple tickets for various cinemas plus I was interstate and didn't want to miss out on tickets to certain movies, I had to do it online.
QMoviefan - Mon 27 Feb 2006 23:27:16 Replies: add

love you, love yer work.
mini whinge only.

i'll try & make it succinct:
would have bought pink pass.
would not pay $1.50 per tix booking fee, so no MCA tix.
$10 per tix ok, but separate venues meant complications for ticket multiples.

result?
saw only 14 movies out of 22 selected.
would have happily given QS $220ish, rather than $143.

lose-lose situation, n'est pas?

requests (in order of preference):
please bring back pink pass.
please reduce online fee to a 'per transaction' fee.
please make it possible for us to get 10 tix across different venues.

mwah, mwah, mwah (big gay air kisses)
nic - Tue 28 Feb 2006 21:31:14 Replies: add

love you, love yer work.
the quality of chicks' flicks has really improved over the last few years.
i understand that this has been megan's doing.

also, i've found megan's introductions quite in-depth and including relevant, or festival-specific comments.

even the simple reading of the program notes can help those of us who go to more than 2 films and stop us suffering from 'film-festival-itis'. (the condition where you forget what the names of the films are, let alone who directed it and why).

laconically oz summary:
better than average, mate.

hugs & freckles

nic - Tue 28 Feb 2006 21:44:43 Replies: add

Troi - Wed 1 Mar 2006 08:37:52

Contact Pinkboard