Maybe you said something earlier and I missed it, but how was Malick's "The New World" received at the festival? I know it was shown out of competition, but how do you think it would have fared had it been an official competitor?

I'm still dismayed and bewildered by the film's poor reception by the Academy. Malick will probably remain one of the great masters whose work was so sublime, the Academy couldn't understand it.

It's been great having you report in from
Berlin and giving us our first heads-up on this crop of films! Which festival are you off to next?

Considering the sympathy for the subject, and the fact that two of the prisoners were in Berlin, has it been possible or even relevant to judge whether The Road To Guantanamo is really a good film or not? I've seldom admired much that Winterbottom has done and I wonder if, by choosing certain political subjects, his film is already over halfway to being welcomed. I thought In This World was rather lazy and unfinished. What I have read about Road to Guantanamo has concentrated on the content and not the style.

Jeffrey, it's really hard to say how the jury would have dealt with The New World if it were competing. As you can probably see in the way they've divvied out the awards, they've taken great pains to recognize as many of the worthy films in Competition as possible. I wouldn't agree that Grbavica is the best of the bunch, but I do see that the decision makes sense - as a statement, of sorts. In conjunction with the other awards, it re-establishes the Berlinale's position as the most political of all the major festivals. At the same time, it's difficult to see Grbavica in the running for any of the Silver Bears (except for possibly a Jury Prize); the two leads, for example, are women, and yet the Best Actress Silver Bear simply had to go to Sandra Hüller. And so on. The jury did a fine job, in other words.

But back to The New World. It really would have thrown the jury for a loop, I'd guess, really shaken up the delicate equation they came up with. I just don't know. My own initial reaction is here. Not much has changed since, naturally, because I've had my head crammed with other films, but like I say, I look forward to seeing it again when I have the rest of the evening to ponder it.

Michael - I'm off to SXSW next, a festival different in any number of ways from the Berlinale. The Berlinale's fun, yes, but it's also hard work, if you know what I mean. In contrast, SXSW takes place in the great, great city of Austin just as spring is hitting Texas. There's practically a live band playing on every corner, unique venues like the Alamo Drafthouse encourage a relaxed approach to the films (though things can get a little snazzy at the Paramount, though never suffocatingly so), the staff, from Matt Dentler through the volunteers, are helpful and friendly as all get out and, as an added personal bonus for me, I get to see family and a lot of old friends again. I'll try to cover more films than I did last year (I really slipped up last year, got a little too relaxed; won't happen again!), but coverage still won't be quite as intense as the Berlinale coverage.

Ronald, you've put your finger right on the #1 item of discussion of Guantanamo around here ever since its screening. I'm reminded a bit of the reaction to Fahrenheit 911 at Cannes in 2004. Audiences (and the jury, too, evidently) were blown away and it was only later that you heard murmurs along the lines, Wait a minute, wait a minute... how good a film is this, really, as a film?

I'd step back a minute and think of a scale for docs (and I'd emphasize that this is only one scale; many others could be drawn up); on one end, subjectivity, argument, more essay than documentary, represented by, say, Michael Moore. On the other, objectivity, considered analysis, fact privileged above all else, represented by, say, Ric Burns.

On this scale, Guantanamo is on the Michael Moore end, but goes even a step or two further in that much of it is reenactment of the Tipton Three's stories. It also moves very fast, leaving little time for questions, makes generous use of the pathos-inducing music we heard in In This World (a film I still very much like, by the way) and so on. It is, in short, an argument.

I don't have a problem with that. Just as with Fahrenheit, the issue at hand is urgent and the film is a plea, making generous use of every trick in the book, for something to be done about it now. It does not present itself as an objective history of the camp for the ages or of US incarceration or of US foreign policy since 9/11 and so and so on.

The style, in other words, IMHO, is absolutely appropriate for the project.

I am so envious!! I love Austin and in years past was there every Spring break to attend the Maya Meetings at UT. So I know exactly what you're describing. A pity that I wasn't so much into film at the time and focused only on hieroglyphs and music.

You know to grab breakfast at Las Manitas, no? Have a wonderful time!! And I look forward to hearing your reports. Sounds like SxSW has scored a wealth of premieres!