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 …