Trent Reznor posted a link to download the new Nine Inch Nails album on the band’s Web site earlier today. The album, called “The Slip” has 10 tracks and clocks in at 43:45. I just downloaded it, so I can’t tell you how it sounds but it is a full-length, full band release.

Reznor’s post reads “thank you for your continued and loyal support over the years — this one’s on me.” Free music seems to be getting more and more common as bands are finding a way to circumvent record labels and traditional distribution.

Earlier this year Reznor released a four part instrumental set called “Ghosts I-IV,” with various payment options including one that allowed fans to download some of the tracks for free.

I like to see bands pushing the boundaries of the music industry. Record labels are in trouble if they can’t completely adapt to the Internet. Obviously this “give it away” model will only work for established bands that can afford to make music for free (Nine Inch Nails, Radiohead, even Pennywise).

So where is the music industry going? Any thoughts on whether free music is the future?

Last weekend I was laboring through a10 page paper. This involves a lot of writing but it also involves a lot of other distracting activities (after a while I just can’t look at Microsoft Word anymore). So I was Web site hopping and came across this thing called The “Blog” of “Unnecessary” Quotation Marks.

People submit pictures of signs that were apparently made by people who don’t really know what quotation marks are for. I thought this was hysterical and could just barely keep myself from making any noise in the Undergrad while I was looking through it. Looking back on it now, while I’m in a more normal state, it’s not really as funny as I originally thought it was. It is still amusing, though.

In any case, I’d recommend you check this blog out when you’re at that point in the studying cycle where you feel like your head is going to explode. Maybe then you’ll find it as hilarious as I did at first.

The following was written by Ebertfest correspondent Andy Herren.

I am now home from John Turturro’s brilliant film Romance & Cigarettes.  The ambiance today was much different that during The Cell last night, as the old people were out again in full force.  I excitedly waited in my seat while Chaz Ebert and Richard Corliss from TIME Magazine introduced the film.  Chaz then exclaimed, “I’m off to see my man!” and exited the theater, bringing this year’s bittersweet Ebertfest to a close.
The film was great.  Funny, moving, and catchy, with actress Aida Turturro and choreographer Tricia Brouk answering questions immediately following the screening.  The mood throughout the day was all about family, both with the film’s narrative structure, and the way that Ms. Turturro spoke of her cousin, director John Turturro, and the way that the film is loosely based on his life.
Plus, I got to talk to Aida Turturro about one of my favorite guilty pleasure films:  Deep Blue Sea.  When I asked her if she was bummed that her character was blown up and not eaten by sharks in Deep Blue Sea, she responded, “Haha!  I was in Mexico, drinking and laying on the beach…I didn’t give a shit!”  It was at this moment that I fell in love with Aida Turturro.  

The following was written by Ebertfest correspondent Andy Herren.
Whimsical.  No other word could better describe both actress Christine Lahti and her role as Aunt Sylvie in Bill Forsyth’s bizarre, yet compelling and sweet 1987 film, Housekeeping. 
I entered the Virginia Theatre around 6:50, figuring that I would have plenty of time to grab a seat, even save a few for friends, before Housekeeping’s 7:30 start time.  Sadly, I underestimated the promptness of the Ebertfest crowd, also known as old people.  As I walked in, much to my chagrin, I found every single seat in the center section to be occupied except one, which I quickly snatched up.  And this was after I had already been yelled at for trying to sit in the V.I.P. section. 
I knew nothing about this film going into the screening, and after Chaz Ebert’s delightful introduction, I was plunged into Bill Forsyth’s unique artistic vision only to come out feeling elated that I took the ride.  The film tells the story of two sisters whose mother commits suicide, and they end up living with their eccentric Aunt Sylvie.  One of the sisters hates Aunt Sylvie and finds her eccentric lifestyle abhorrent, yet the other sister finds Sylvie’s quirky, eccentric personality compelling.  The film is ultimately about the inner child of these three women, with Sylvie never wanting to let hers go and the two girls tragically losing theirs at an early age. 
Forsyth presents the audience with a demanding film that never compromises its artistic vision.  Some characters receive no closure and their flaws are not corrected, yet this makes the movie great because it reflects how life is never perfect.
Actress Christine Lahti and director Bill Forsyth joined film critic Michael Phillips onstage after the screening, and Lahti is just as wonderful off-screen as she was in the film.  The two had not been in touch for twenty years, so that made the reunion all the more endearing.  Lahti exclaimed how excited she was that Diane Keaton passed on the role of Sylvie when she exclaimed that Housekeeping was “the best script that had ever, ever been sent to me.  I just sucked up to him [Forsyth] to land the role.”
When asked about the film’s initial, unsuccessful release by Columbia Pictures, Forsyth commented, “I don’t think it was released.  It escaped for a bit.” He furthered by explaining that the studio official at Columbia backing Houskeeping was fired while the film was in production, and his replacement cared nothing for the film, putting it on the backburner in favor of new, high-end concepts. 
When asked about the proudest moment of her career, Lahti closed the discussion by stating, “I might be most proud of this movie.  I really am.  I just love it so much.”  The passion of both Lahti and Forsyth was through the roof, and the magic of the film seemed to linger throughout the audience as the theater emptied.
After all was said and done I thought once again of my elderly friends all around me.  I got to thinking, and came up with a question for Ms. Lahti.  “What can be done to bring out more young people to Ebertfest?” I asked her.  “Well,” she said in semi-serious, semi-joking tone, “just get Miley Cyrus to come.”  While she was partially kidding, the truth in her statement sent shivers down my spine.  More college students should be attending the festival, and if it takes Miley Cyrus to bring in the numbers, then I am officially transferring.
I also stayed for the screening of Tarsem Singh’s beautiful, chilling The Cell, and this restored my faith in U of I students a bit.  The audience was about half elderly, half college age, and I can’t really even put into the words the joy that shot through my body while watching six elderly people vacate the theater as Vince Vaughn was getting disemboweled.

The following was written by Ebertfest correspondent Colleen Loggins.

When I signed up to report on the movie “Underworld” for this year’s Ebertfest, I thought, sweet I love vampire movies and I like Kate Beckinsale. This should be fun! But that Roger Ebert is a tricky little fellow.
“Underworld” is actually a film from 1927 about American gangsters. A silent film. When I finally figured that out, I was a little nervous to watch it. I was also a little concerned that the special guests were merely members of an orchestra.
Oh how wrong I was to be concerned. While it was definitely a new experience to actually sit through an entire silent film, the Alloy Orchestra made it an enjoyable one. The three man orchestra used a variety of different instruments to create a musical score that made dialog unnecessary. Right away, the orchestra made me jump out of my seat when they created a loud explosion noise set to the scene of a bank heist. They were also able to capture the mood of the film which they later admitted was tricky because the film is not really a “shoot ‘em up” gangster movie, and is more of a psychological drama.
I was also surprised at the depth of the film and the fact that it was a psychological drama. I thought it would be hard to convey complex emotions without words and that there would be over-the-top acting, but the subtleties were impressive.
After the first explosion, I forgot that the orchestra was even there because they scored the film so well, and I got caught up in watching what was happening on screen.
It was also fun to take in the atmosphere at the gorgeous Virginia Theatre. There were so many people there, which was surprising to me at first (again, silent film), and all of the people seemed to be huge movie buffs who knew what were seemingly random facts about movies I had never even heard of before. It was very interesting to hear what some of them had to say, and if you have never been to Ebertfest before, you really should give it a try. It might even make you have a whole new appreciation for a genre you would have never watched before the festival.

The following was written by Ebertfest correspondent Tim Peters.

“Presently the discourse fell upon ‘feuds,’ for in no part of the South has the vendetta flourished more briskly, or held out longer between warring families, than in this particular region.”

-Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi
As he rode down the Mississippi, Mark Twain came across a man who told him of a feud between the Darnells and the Watsons. They forgot why the families started fighting – “Some says it was about a horse or a cow” – but whenever they met, they would shoot to kill. The Darnells lost, the last three heirs to the family picked off in a steamboat holdup.

This kind of chivalric senselessness, this proud, unending violence, is something I expect of a family feud. Something like the Montagues and the Capulets – so much unreasonable group hatred that it sprouts tangles of fate and tragedy. Of course, there are lighter variations – like Gogol’s The Squabble between Ivan Ivanovich and Ivan Nikiforovich or the Simpsons against the Flanders, in which insults (“goose”) or contests (miniature golf) replace bloodshed.

Shotgun Stories – the opening Friday film of Ebertfest – wanted to tell of a serious and tragic southern feud, but more often felt like the anecdote Twain heard, making you cringe, shake your head, and forget about it. Director Jeff Nichols set the feud in Arkansas, near his hometown of Little Rock. He said in an introduction that, “It was real important for the film to show this place and these people as I saw it growing up.”

Nichols’ plot grows from the standard soil of independent films: the broken family. Three brothers – Boy, Kid, and Son – learn of their father’s death. He was an alcoholic and left them with a brutal mother, who actually seems quite congenial in her few scenes. Daddy started a new family, quit the drink, and found Jesus. The boys crash the funeral, starting a feud with their half-brothers.

Nichols tries to be laconic in dialogue – his characters speaking in terse monosyllables – and in photography – his camera gazes at the cotton fields and the silos, at Main Street and at the trailer park. Much of it evokes the Coen brothers’ No Country for Old Men.

However, it was a languorous beginning to a day of four films, evidenced by the man to my left who dozed off, and the one to my right who was checking his PDA. To tell a slow, measured story – as Nichols seemed to want – gives us time to look at the characters, to sense them as real people. This is a problem, though, when the characters either seem improbable or, worse, predictable, such as the brother who looks as out-of-shape as comedian Artie Lang, yet is a basketball coach, or the college student half-brother who, when he can’t fix a tractor, is told he isn’t taught anything at “that school”.

In his discussion after the film, Nichols stressed how he wanted to portray a place and people he knew. He also – inadvertently – revealed why this movie, despite it’s attempt at authenticity, felt hackneyed and forced. He said that, while he knew the town, the plot was foreign: “My family loves me, there the ones that helped me make this movie.”

Nichols may know the vernacular of the south, but it won’t help him write the words of murder and abandonment and revenge. After the film, the audience applauded warmly and the interviewers gave praise. My main thought while watching was: when are they going to get the shotguns?

Deceiving and manipulative as the “bad guy” in many of his films, Rufus Sewell is nothing but charming in real life. While buying water and waiting outside of The Virginia Theatre for the movie “Yes” to start, Illini Media Company Ebertfest correspondent Stephanie Poquette ran into the actor best known for his roles in “A Knight’s Tale,” “Tristan and Isolde” and “The Illusionist.” Politely agreeing to pictures and autographs, he was a crowd favorite. But, that didn’t stop one Virginia Theatre  worker from kicking him out for not having his VIP pass.

IMC: What brings you to Ebertfest this year?

RS:  Well, I came for my movie, “Hamlet,” even though I’ve seen it about a million times. This is my first time at the festival, and I am really enjoying it. I got straight off the plane and headed over here to sit and watch a four-hour movie (Hamlet), but I’ve also been watching some of the other films. 

IMC: So you just watched Tom Dicillo’s “Delirious,” what did you think? 

RS: I really enjoyed it. I’m a big fan of the directors. The performances were really good. It’s great to see a movie that addresses both the frenzy of being famous, and the frenzy to become famous. This is a dominant part of our culture (obsession with celebrities), and it’s interesting to see a movie that addresses the other side of it (what the paparazzi do). I also think Michael Pitt is just a wonderful actor.

IMC: You have been in a lot of period pieces.  Do you prefer acting in those types of movies?

RS: It’s not that I prefer or enjoy them; it’s just that you find scripts are quite unimaginative lately. If I find a period piece that I like, then fine, but I don’t have a preference for them. You also find that directors or people in the business are looking for certain people to play certain roles. I suppose I fit this role. But, as you can see from my dress, I am not that old fashion (laughs).

IMC: What movie or character did you enjoy working on the most?

RS: I really liked working on my latest film, “Vinyan.” It should be coming out next year.  But other than that I really enjoyed working on “Tristan and Isolde.” It was one of the times that I played a good guy, and I don’t regret that at all. 

IMC: Speaking of being the “good guy,” a lot of people would say that you always play “bad guys.” Do you gravitate towards these characters more?

RS: (Laughs) It’s not that I gravitate towards these characters. It’s just if I play a good guy, I guarantee that people won’t see the film.

IMC: Is there any director that you would like to work with?

RS: Well, I mean, there are all the obvious choices, but I would like to work with Mike Lee. And, I suppose I could give Scorsese a chance.

 The following was written by Ebertfest correspondent Dan Puzzo

At noon on Thursday the doors opened at the historic Virginia Theater in downtown Champaign. The first in the queue that wound around the block were welcomed to the 10^th annual Roger Ebert Film Festival, or Ebertfest. Nobody knew quite what to expect as the largely senior citizen crowd (this is a weekday afternoon, mind you) shuffled into the theater greeted by the peppy tunes of an organist.

 Most of the films in this festival are famously overlooked, and “Delirious,” a Tom DiCillo film initially released in 2006, is certainly no exception. Roger Ebert could not be in attendance due to numerous medical ailments, so his wife, Chaz, appeared onstage alone to introduce the film. After quickly welcoming the first audience of the day, Chaz exited the stage, the curtains were lifted and the film began to role.

“Delirious” deals with the coming together and growing apart of two lowlifes: Les (Steve Buscemi), a paparazzi who resists being identified as such (“I’m a licensed professional!”) and Toby (Michael Pitt), a young transient who volunteers to work for Les free of charge in order to get off the streets. The film is expertly cast, and one could easily devote an entire article to exploring the film’s intricacies, but suffice it to say “Delirious” takes a refreshingly mature look at matters like the bonds between men and the invisible pedestal that separates celebrities from the ordinary. While the themes may sound contrived, they are approached in a light rarely captured on the big screen.

Most impressively, the film was able to draw in all age elements of the audience and, thanks to strong comedic elements, laughter permeated the theater throughout the entire show. In fact, it has been quite a while since I’ve witnessed a theater audience so unified in their reaction to a film. The receptive audience made an already great experience all the better, and it’s unlikely any one person alone would have derived as much pleasure from the movie as the film devotees in the Virginia Theater got from the good vibrations of their peers.

Once the film ended and the roars of approval had died down, Chaz came back on stage with three golden “thumbs up” trophies for a post-film panel, which included director Tom DiCillo and Ebert’s fellow critic, Richard Roeper. Roeper opened up the discussion by analyzing the film from a critical perspective, and then handed the reigns to DiCillo, who elaborated on the 6-year-long struggle he went through to get this film made.

DiCillo was initially bitter about the lackluster distribution efforts behind the film, which had earned it an abysmal box office performance despite strong reviews. This is understandable, for nobody who has spent half a decade bringing a masterful film to theaters only to have next to nobody view it for reasons beyond their control could avoid feeling bitter. In fact, DiCillo was visibly disturbed when the panel’s discussion veered in the direction of the movie’s theatrical run and vowed to only discuss things in a positive light for the remainder of the session.

As the panel wrapped up its discussion and thunderous applause erupted from the audience one last time, DiCillo’s eyes grew misty and his voice began to waiver. At this point I understood the true magic of Ebertfest for the first time. Roger Ebert made it his mission to find an audience for great but ignored films, and as Tom DiCillo walked off stage, emotional but smiling, I realized Ebert had done it again. “Delirious” finally found its audience.

The following was written by Ebertfest correspondent Andy Herren. 

“Am I in the right room?” was the initial thought that entered my head as I strolled into the Pine Lounge at the Union today. As I walked into the Union I expected to see fellow students and film enthusiasts like myself, hopefully even a few friends, at the expert-rich discussion. What I saw instead was quite interesting: old people. Lots of them.

I took my seat in the front row next to a sweet elderly woman who asked me about my major, why I was at the panel discussion, etc. She was great, but I felt like I was visiting my grandmother in a nursing home rather than preparing to witness an academic panel discussion on the future of independent film. I then sat and pondered how many people my age actually know about Ebertfest. I mean, my friends all know about the festival because I won’t shut the hell up about it, but other than that I think it is an event that is sadly overlooked on this campus.

So, after realizing that the students on this campus are really missing out on some amazing insight into the world of film and accepting my fate at spending the next hour and a half in geriatric city, I got out my pen and paper and excitedly started to take notes.

The panel was introduced, and the film geek inside me went absolutely crazy. There was Richard Roeper (who I talked briefly with about Zodiac before getting star-struck and excitedly stating that I was in awe to be in the same room as him)! Timothy Spall was there too! And Rufus Sewell! And Eran Kolirin! I was ecstatic.

The discussion was about independent film, and the struggles to bring these films to audiences through personal finance, problems with funding and even, semi-jokingly, the exploitation of children. Everyone was passionate and personable, with some key quotations coming from “Delirious” director Tom DiCillio — who, on the topic of film bypassing theaters and hitting the internet, proclaimed, “Film as a solo experience in front of a computer? Fuck that!” — and from actor Rufus Sewell as he stated, “If I read a great script I pray that the movie is not picked up by a big studio, because the big studios will take over the film and ultimately try to change the filmmakers’ vision.”

The mood was clear: independent film should be celebrated, and it is a shame at how hard it is for these films to reach audiences. Also, the experience of watching a film on the big screen should not be doubted, as it is the ultimate way that films are meant to be shown.

I would have put more quotations into this story, but I found that about halfway through the discussion I was so engrossed by the sheer passion of the speakers that I forgot to continue taking notes. Independent filmmakers sure do have the heart, and heart is what produces great movies. The stories that were being told and the anecdotes coming from the mouths of the speakers were so strong and so vivid that I could feel the enthusiasm for film resonating throughout the room.

Soon the discussion came to a close, and the question and answer portion came up. An elderly woman proclaimed how she would like to personally fund some independent film; another asked why the trademark thumbs up has been removed from “Ebert & Roeper.” Even I had the nerve to ask a question, although I was so nervous that I almost fainted whilst doing so. The discussion was amazing, the passion was evident, and I got to meet Richard Roeper. Oh the joys of being a film nerd …

Well, hello there people who read us! I thought I would post again to break up the total domination that Phil has over the blog!

Of course, my genre is a little bit different, but just as fun! Whoo! I’m really into exclamation points today!! Ok. I will stop.

I know I haven’t written in a while but that’s not because I don’t still love you. I really, really do. I’ve just been busy. And I’m sure you all have been just as busy too, so I’m sure you understand.

I think it is imperative that I stop something today before it gets out of hand and continues well into the summer. I’m talking about wearing dark nail polish when it is clearly not winter anymore. I was all about the black when it became trendy a year and a half ago, and I absolutely love dark wine hues and deep purples, but not when it is warm outside. In the spring and summer, everything about fashion and beauty gets a little lighter because it is literally getting lighter and lighter outside. Lighter means bright pinks, and soft corals and even electric yellow.

I just think everyone needs to lighten up (it’s finally warm!) and their nails should reflect this feeling. Even if you are having a bad day, you will at least have some lightness in your life.

Don’t forget: the only color that is appropriate for all seasons is a bright red.